On August 31, 2020, in an opinion by newly-appointed Appellate Immigration Judge Stephanie Gorman, previously an Immigration Judge (IJ) with an extremely high asylum denial rate, the Board of Immigration… CONTINUE
Permanent Resident Removal Proceedings Due to Criminal Convictions
On July 30, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr, in a case which he had directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer to him in… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Where One Has Been Personally Served With A Notice To Appear Advising Him Of The Requirement To Notify The Immigration Court Of His Correct Address But Does Not Do So And Is Ordered Removal In Absentia For Failure To Appear At A Hearing, Reopening Of Proceedings To Rescind His Order Of Removal Based On A Lack Of Proper Notice Is Not Warranted, Per INA §240(b)(5)(C)(ii). Respondent’s Failure To Update His Address For Over 18 Years Indicates A Lack Of Due Diligence And May Properly Be Found To Undermine The Veracity Of His Claim That He Has Taken Actions To Maintain His Rights In The Underlying Removal Proceedings.
On August 5, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed Respondent’s appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen and rescind… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Section 13-3407 Of The Arizona Revised Statutes, Which Criminalizes Possession Of A Dangerous Drug, Is Divisible With Regard To The Specific “Dangerous Drug” Involved In A Violation Of That Statute.
On July 23, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in what appears to be an attempt to limit the use of the categorical approach or make it… CONTINUE
Attorney General Holds That, Under DOJ Regulations Implementing The Convention Against Torture (CAT), An Act Constutues “Torture” Only If It Is Inflicted Or Approved By A Public Official Or Other Person “Acting In An Offical Capacity.” 8 C.F.R.§1208.18(a)(1). This Official Capacity Requirement Limits The Scope Of The CAT To Actions Performed “Under Color Of Law.” Matter Of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002). Nothing In Y-L-, Or Any Other Board Precedent, Should Be Construed To Endorse A Distinct, “Rogue Official” Standard. The “Under Color Of Law” Standard Draws No Categorical Distinction Between The Acts Of Low- And High – Level Officials. A Public Official, Regardless Of Rank, Acts “Under Color Of Law” When He “Exercise[s] Power Possessed By Virtue Of…Law And Made Possible Only Because [He Was] Clothed With The Authority Of…Law” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 47 (1988)(Quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
On July 14, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer the instant case to him for review of it’s… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That, Per INA §235(b)(2)(C), One Who Is Arriving On Land From A Contiguous Foreign Territory May Be Returned To That Country By DHS Under The Migrant Protection Protocols, Regardless Of Whether He Or She Arrives At Or Between A Designated Port Of Entry.
On July 14, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) denied a request for oral argument and dismissed the appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ)… CONTINUE
EOIR Director Holds That The Assistant Director For Policy Has The Discretion To Extend The Deadline For A Request For Reconsideration Made Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.13(e), But Not For A Request For Reconsideration Made Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.16(f) Or §1292.17(d). The 30-Day Deadline For A Request For Reconsideration In 8 C.F.R. §§121292.12(e),1292.16(f), And 1292.17(d) Is Otherwise Mandatory And Not Subject To Equitable Tolling. A Request For Reconsideration Per 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.13(e), 1292.16(f), Or 1292.17(d) Must Demonstrate An Error Of Fact Or Law In The Previous Decision. The Standard Of Review For Administrative Reviews Conducted Under 8 C.F.R. §1292.18 Is De Novo. Unless Overruled By Subsequent Precedent Or Superceded By Statute, Regulation, Or Binding Federal Court Decision, Prior Precedent Decisions Of The BIA Remain Binding In Recognition And Accreditation Proceedings After January 18, 2017, Including Consideration Of Requests For Reconsideration Per §§1292.13(e), 1292.16(f), or 1292.17(d) And Administrative Review Conducted Under § 1292.18. In Addition To Establishing The Requirements For Partial Accreditation, An Organization Seeking Full Accreditation For An Individual Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.12(a)(6) Must Establish That The Individual Possesses “Skills Essential For Effective Litigation.” Such Skills Include, At A Minimum, “The Ability To Advocate A Client’s Position At A Hearing Before An Immigration Judge By Presenting Documentary Evidence And Questioning Witnesses, To Present Oral Arguments Before The Board, And To Prepare Motions And Briefs For Consideration By An Immigration Judge And/Or [The] Board.” Matter Of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 556 (BIA 2008), Followed.
On May 22, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director James R. McHenry (Director), following up on a Policy Memorandum he published October 2, 2019 (PM 20-02), issued a… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That The Absence Of A Checked Alien Classification Box On A Notice To Appear (NTA) Does Not, By Itself, Render The NTA Fatally Deficient Or Otherwise Preclude An Immigration Judge From Exercising Jurisdiction Over Removal Proceedings And It Is Therefore Not A Basis To Terminate The Proceedings Of A Respondent Who Has Been Returned To Mexico Under The Migrant Protection Protocols. Matter of J.J. Rodriguez, 27 I&N Dec. 762 (BIA 2020), Followed.
On May 8, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in a case where the respondent was pro se, and supplemental briefs were received from DHS and amici… CONTINUE
For Purposes Of Determining Whether A Respondent Is Subject To The Firm Resettlement Bar To Asylum, A Viable And Available Offer To Apply For Permanent Residence In A Country Of Refuge Is Not Negated By One’s Unwillingness Or Reluctance To Satisfy The Terms For Acceptance.
On April 10, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a Haitian citizen whose applications for asylum and withholding of removal had been denied… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Immigration Judge Properly Determined That Respondent Was A Flight Risk And Denied His Request For A Custody Redetermination Where, Although His Asylum Application Was Pending, He Had No Family, Employment Or Community Ties And No Probable Path To Obtain Lawful Status So As To Warrant His Release On Bond.
On March 18, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed Respondent’s appeal of the Immigration Judge (IJ’s) denial of his request to be released on bond. Respondent,… CONTINUE
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- …
- 13
- Next Page »
