On March 30, 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued an order addressing requests from both parties in a case he had previously referred to himself for review. The parties had been… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That In Deciding Whether A State Offense Is Punishable As A Felony Under The Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) And Is Thus An Aggravated Felony Drug Trafficking Crime Per INA §101(A)(43)(B), IJ’s Need Not Look Solely To The CSA Provision Most Similar To The State Statute Of Conviction. Respondent’s Conviction Under §2C:35-7 Of The New Jersey Statutes For Possession With Intent To Distribute Cocaine Within 1,000 Feet Of School Property Is An Aggravated Felony Drug Trafficking Crime Because The State Offense Satisfies All Of The Elements Of 21 U.S.C. §841(A)(1) Of The CSA And Would Be Punishable Under That Provision.
On March 14, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained the DHS appeal of an Immigration Judge (IJ) finding that respondent was not removable per INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii)… CONTINUE
Attorney General Sessions Refers BIA Decision To Himself To Review Issues Relating To The Authority Of Both Immigration Judges And The Board Of Immigration Appeals To Administratively Close Immigration Proceedings.
On January 4, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Sessions issued an order directing the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer Matter of Castro-Tum, A206842910-Philadelphia, PA (BIA, November 27,… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That An Immigration Judge May Make Reasonable Inferences From Direct And Circumstantial Evidence Of Record In Determining Whether Respondent Presents A Danger To The Community, Including Considering Concerns Regarding National Security And The Likelihood Of Respondent Absconding, And Thus Should Or Should Not Be Released On Bond.
On August 3, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent denied release on bond. The Appellant, a conditional resident, had come to… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That In Removal Proceedings Which Involve Issues Of A Respondent’s Mental Competency, The Immigration Judge Has Discretion To Consider And Apply Safeguards To Allow The Case To Go Forward And The Board Reviews The Adequacy Of The Judge’s Decision De Novo.
On June 29, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) ruled on the DHS appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) termination of removal proceedings without prejudice, where the… CONTINUE
BIA Holds One Cannot Establish Good Moral Character Per INA §101(f)(6) If, During The Required Period, He or She Gives False Testimony Under Oath In Immigration Court Intending To Obtain An Immigration Benefit.
On June 27, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) held that a Mexican citizen who knowingly lied about his criminal history before the Immigration Judge (IJ) in… CONTINUE
BIA Holds A Conviction For Endangering The Welfare Of a Child Under Section 260.10(1) Of The New York Penal Law, Which Requires Knowingly Acting In A Manner Likely To Be Injurious To The Physical, Mental Or Moral Welfare Of A Child, Categorically Qualifies As A ‘Crime Of Child Abuse, Child Neglect, Or Child Abandonment” Per INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i).
On February 9, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent found removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) as one convicted of a “crime… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That A Witness Testifying About Events He Or She Has Experienced Has Personal Knowledge Of The Matters Addressed And The Federal Rules Of Evidence Requirements Regarding The Admission Of Expert And Lay Testimony Do Not Apply. Additionally, Conduct By An Immigration Judge (IJ) That Is Bullying Or Hostile To A Witness Is Inappropriate, Particularly When It Involves A Minor, And May Result In A Remand To a New IJ.
On November 23, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) vacated a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying a 15 year-old’s request for withholding of removal and… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That For Purposes OF NACARA Special Rule Cancellation, Continuous Physical Presence Is Measured From The Respondent’s Most Recently Incurred Ground Of Removal, At Least If That Ground Is Set Forth In 8 CFR § 1240.66(c)(1).
On December 2, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) decided how to calculate continuous physical presence for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA where a respondent… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That In Immigration Proceedings, Neither Party Bears A Formal Burden Of Proof To Establish The Respondent Is Mentally Competent, But Where Indications Of Incompetency Are Apparent, The Immigration Judge Should Determine If Competency Is Proved By A Preponderance Of The Evidence, A Finding Of Fact The Board Reviews Under A Clearly Erroneous Standard.
On November 2, 2015 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) “set forth a framework for allocation of the burden of proof for mental competency issues raised in immigration… CONTINUE
