On November 6, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) issued an amicus invitation welcoming parties to brief whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Esquirel-Quintana v. Sessions,… CONTINUE
BIA Requests Amicus Curiae Briefs
On November 5, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) issued an amicus invitation welcoming interested parties to brief whether an Immigration Judge errs in terminating proceedings when… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That To Qualify For A Waiver Of Inadmissibility Under INA §209(c), One Who Is Found To Be A Violent Or Dangerous Individual Must Establish Extraordinary Circumstances, Which May Be Demonstrated By A Showing Of Exceptional And Extremely Unusual Hardship To The Applicant Or His Qualifying Relatives. Matter of Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002) Followed. Even If One Establishes This Level Of Hardship, The Favorable And Adverse Factors Must Be Balanced To Determine If A Waiver Should Be Granted In The Exercise Of Discretion.
On November 1, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained the DHS appeal of a grant of Respondent’s application for an INA §209(c) waiver of inadmissibility and… CONTINUE
Attorney General Barr Holds That The Tests Set Forth in Matter of Cota Vargas, Matter of Song And Matter of Estrada Will No Longer Govern The Effect Of State Court Orders That Modify, Clarify Or Otherwise Alter A Criminal Respondent’s Sentence. Such State Court Orders Will Be Given Effect For Immigration Purposes Only If Based On A Procedural Or Substantive Defect In The Underlying Criminal Proceeding; These Orders Will Have Effect For Immigration Purposes If Based On Reasons Unrelated To The Merits Of The Underlying Criminal Proceeding, Such As Rehabilitation Or The Avoidance Of Immigration Consequences.
On October 25, 2019, Attorney General (AG) William Barr issued a decision in a case which he had, on May 28, 2019, directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or… CONTINUE
Attorney General Barr Holds That The Immigration And Nationality Act’s “Good Moral Character” Standard Requires Adherence To The Generally Accepted Moral Conventions Of The Community And That Criminal Activity Is Probative Of Non-Adherence To Such Conventions. Therefore, Evidence Of Two Or More Convictions For Driving Under The Influence During The Relevant Period Establishes A Presumption That One Lacks Good Moral Character Under INA §101(f). Because Only Those Who Possess Good Moral Character For A 10-Year Period Are Eligible For Cancellation Of Removal Per INA §240A(b), Such Evidence Presumptively Establishes That One’s Application For That Discretionary Relief Should Be Denied.
On October 25, 2019, Attorney General (AG) William Barr issued a decision in a case previously decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board). On December 3, 2018,… CONTINUE
A Conviction For Dissuading A Witness Under California Penal Code §136.1(b)(1) Is Categorically An Aggravated Felony Obstruction Of Justice Offense Per INA 101(a)(43)(S). Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo, 27 I&N Dec. 449 (BIA 2018) Followed. The Holding In Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo May Be Applied Retroactively.
On October 18, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent for the second time, finding that his conviction for dissuading a witness… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Offense Of Menacing In Violation Of Section 163.190 Of The Oregon Revised Statutes Is Categorically A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. The Actual Infliction Of Fear Is Not Necessary For The Crime To Categorically Involve Moral Turpitude, Where The Statute Requires Evil Or Malicious Intent And The Level Of Threatened Harm, Or Magnitude Of Menace Implicit In The Threat, Is Serious And Immediate. Matter Of Solon, 24 I&N Dec.239 (BIA 2007), Distinguished.
On October 11, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent contesting the pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal under INA… CONTINUE
Because The Identity Of The Drug Involved Is An Element Of The Crime Of Possession Of A Controlled Substance Under Section 124.401(5) Of The Iowa Code, The Statue Is Divisible (Regarding Marijuana, Methamphetamine Or Amphetamine) As To The Specific Drug Involved, And The Record Of Conviction Can Be Examined Under The Modified Categorical Approach To Determine Whether That Drug Is A Controlled Substance Under Federal Law. Respondent’s Conviction For Methamphetamine Possession Under Section 124.401(5) Qualifies As A Controlled Substance Offense Under INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i).
On September 25, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a lawful permanent resident convicted of possession of methamphetamine and, shortly thereafter, of marijuana… CONTINUE
The Standard Of Proof Necessary To Bar The Approval Of A Visa Petition Based On Marriage Fraud Under INA §204(c) Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence.” The Degree Of Proof Necessary To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Is More Than A Preponderance Of Evidence, But Less Than Clear And Convincing Evidence; The Evidence Must Be More Than Probably True That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. The Nature, Quality, Quantity, And Credibility Of The Evidence Of Marriage Fraud Contained In The Record Should Be Considered In Its Totality In Determining If It Is “Substantial And Probative.” The Application Of This Standard Of Proof Requires The Examination Of All The Relevant Evidence And A Determination As To Whether Such Evidence When Viewed In Its Totality, Establishes With Sufficient Probability That The Marriage Is Fraudulent. Both Direct And Circumstantial Evidence May Be Considered In Determining Whether There Is “Substantial And Probative Evidence” Of Marriage Fraud Under §204(c) And Circumstantial Evidence Alone May Be Sufficient To Constitute “Substantial And Probative Evidence.
On August 23, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a decision by USCIS Field Office Director (FOD) denying a Form I-130 visa petition,… CONTINUE
Attorney General Barr Holds That In Matter Of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2018), The BIA Improperly Recognized The Respondent’s Father’s Immediate Family As A “Particular Social Group” (PSG) For Purposes Of Qualifying For Asylum Under The INA. All Asylum Applicants Seeking to Establish Membership In A PSG, Including Groups Defined By Family Or Kinship Ties, Must Establish That The Group Is 1) Composed Of Members Who Share A Common Immutable Characteristic; 2) Defined With Particularity; 3) Socially Distinct Within The Society In Question. While The BIA Has Recognized Certain Clans And Subclans as PSGs, Most Nuclear Families Are Not Inherently Socially Distinct And Therefore Do Not Qualify As PSGs. The Portion Of The BIA’s Decision Recognizing The Respondent’s Proposed PSG Is Overruled (Matter Of L-E-A, Part II. A). The Rest Of The BIA’s Decision Including Its Analysis Of The Required Nexus Between Alleged Persecution And The Alleged Protected Ground, Is Affirmed (Part II.B).
On July 29, 2019, Attorney General (AG) William Barr issued a decision in a case decided in 2018 by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) where most recently,… CONTINUE
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- …
- 31
- Next Page »
