• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visa
    • H-1B Work Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Founder
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Ana Gandara, Associate
    • Cara Cox, Associate
  • Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us

Levin and Pangilinan PC

Immigration Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691 
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visa
    • H-1B Work Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Founder
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Ana Gandara, Associate
    • Cara Cox, Associate
  • Blog
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us

Latest BIA Decision Clarifies Immigration Court Choice of Law

June 30, 2023 Philip Levin

BIA Holds That For Choice Of Law Purposes, The Controlling Circuit Law In Immigration Court Proceedings Is The Law Governing The Geographic Location Of The Immigration Court Where Venue Lies, Namely Where Jurisdiction Vests And Proceedings Commence Upon The Filing Of A Charging Document, And Will Only Change If An Immigration Judge Subsequently Grants A Change Of Venue To Another Immigration Court. Matter of R-C-R, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), Clarified.

On March 24, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Respondent’s application for relief, including his request for cancellation of removal per INA § 240A(b)(1). While the appeal was pending, the BIA requested supplemental briefing on whether the case was governed by the law of the Third or Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Respondent had entered the U.S. without inspection. Almost 18 years later, DHS issued a Notice to Appear (NTA) charging him with removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present without admission or parole. The NTA was filed with the Immigration Court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and directed Respondent to appear for his initial hearing there. Three notices of hearing scheduled hearings in Philadelphia and Respondent appeared there; DHS subsequently filed a motion to change venue to the Immigration Court in York, Pennsylvania because Respondent was newly detained at the York County Prison. He appeared in this court several times and the IJs that presided over all of Respondent’s hearings “sat in either the Philadelphia or York Immigration Courts.” Additionally, all of Respondent’s evidentiary submission were filed with either the Philadelphia or York Immigration Courts.

At the beginning of Respondent’s individual hearing, the IJ stated on the record that she was conducting a merits hearing for the York Immigration Court via teleconference, while physically located in Falls Church, Virginia at the Falls Church Immigration Adjudication Center. Her oral decision and summary order both contained the York court’s heading and were supported by an addendum of law citing Third Circuit law. She also stated on the record that “the hearing was completed via televideo in Pennsylvania.”

The Board began its analysis by discussing the issue of choice of law, first setting forth the proper legal and procedural framework. The question presented was whether these proceedings arose within the jurisdiction, and were thus covered by the law, of the Third (Pennsylvania) or Fourth (Virginia) Circuit. The opinion noted that IJs and the BIA are bound to follow the precedent of the Board, the Attorney General, and the circuit court of appeals with jurisdiction over the geographic region where a case occurs.

Where the parties and IJ appear at the same location, stated the Board, choice of law determinations are generally clear. However, where the parties and/or the IJ appear from different locations, including from different judicial circuits, the question becomes more difficult as to which circuit’s law applies. This is exacerbated by both the Immigration Court system’s expansion and the corresponding increase in the use of remote hearings held via video or telephonic conference. Additionally, court procedures sometimes involve the use of administrative control courts, defined by regulation as courts that create and maintain Records of Proceedings for Immigration Courts “within an assigned geographical area.” Respondents must file all documents and correspondence in a particular case with the court having administrative control over a Record of Proceedings and not with any other Immigration Court.

The decision then found that in considering situations where the parties and/or the IJ are appearing remotely from different circuits, “the practical implications present in the choice of law analysis become even more evident.” The BIA made clear that it desires to avoid scenarios where “a different circuit’s law will apply in a petition for review of proceedings that the parties, the Immigration Judge, and [the] Board believed were governed by another circuit’s law”; such occurrences “upset settled expectations and can raise questions about the fairness of proceedings.”

Next, the BIA-stating that it is bound to follow the law of the circuit “with jurisdiction over the region where an Immigration Court is located” – noted that it had previously held, in Matter of R-C-R, 28 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2020), that the circuit law applied to proceedings conducted via video conference is the law governing the docketed hearing location, as opposed to the location of the Administrative control court . In R-C-R, the respondent was located and the case docketed in Louisiana, while the IJ conducted the remote hearing from an administrative control court in New York; the law of the former location’s circuit was applied.

The Board then discussed INA § 242(b)(2), which requires that petitions for review be filed with the court of appeals for the judicial circuit in which the IJ completed proceedings, stating that this provision is used by circuit courts to determine venue. In contrast, the BIA’s choice of law analysis identifies the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court. However, “the same circuit law that will be used to resolve a future petition for review should also be applied in the underlying proceedings so that adjudicators may consider the relevant issues, and the parties may present arguments, pursuant to the law that will ultimately control at the circuit court level.”

The decision ultimately found the analysis and holding of the Second Circuit in Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326 (2d. Cir. 2022) persuasive. There, the court of appeals held that generally an IJ completes proceedings and, thus, venue lies where proceedings commenced (absent a change of venue), so an IJ “who is not physically present in a location” can conduct a virtual hearing by video conference – completing the proceeding – pursuant to the law of the circuit on the charging document.

The opinion next noted that, in the supplemental briefing, DHS had argued that Third Circuit law controlled the case because proceedings had commenced in Philadelphia and venue was later changed to York. In outlining its holding, the Board first concluded that its regulatory authority must give rise to “a rule providing consistency and transparency in the choice of law analysis”. Additionally, any such rule must acknowledge and respond to “the technological advancements in Immigration Court that allow for what is essentially a deconstructed courtroom where the judge, parties, witnesses, and interpreters may all appear from separate physical locations…” Tying the controlling circuit law solely to the IJ’s physical location at the final hearing could affect the controlling circuit law at prior hearings and “significantly impact the parties’ ability to prepare legal arguments pursuant to the applicable circuit law.”

Further, the BIA read the regulation to require that venue lies at the Immigration Court where jurisdiction vests and proceedings before an IJ commence, and only after the charging document is filed with the court may venue be changed. Accordingly, the Board held that the controlling circuit law in proceedings is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document and will only change if a motion to change venue is subsequently granted.

Consequently, concluded the BIA, jurisdiction presumptively vests at the Immigration Court where the charging document is filed; generally, the same court listed on the charging document. This circuit law controls regardless of where the parties and the IJ are located during the hearing. As such, controlling circuit law may only be changed where an IJ grants a motion to change venue.

As a result, venue does not necessarily lie at an administrative control court solely because a charging document is filed there. In practice, such courts may “solely maintain, and have custodial responsibility for, the record of proceedings,” as opposed to being courts where proceedings are commenced per regulation. Therefore, when a charging document is filed at an administrative control court, the IJ “should consider any arguments from the parties and make a finding identifying the Immigration Court where jurisdiction vested.” For these reasons, the Board clarified its decision in R-C-R- to hold that the controlling circuit law is that which governs the geographic location of the court where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence, absent a change of venue.

The BIA further found that, “as a matter of best practice”, IJs should clearly identify on the record at the start of each merits hearing which circuit law applies and where the IJ and parties are physically located. Here the NTA directed Respondent to appear and was filed in Philadelphia. Venue was later changed to York. Both courts are within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit. Therefore, these proceeding fell under that circuit court’s controlling law.

As the Board affirmed the IJ’s determination that Respondent had not established that his son would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he was removed, it held that he had failed to establish cancellation of removal eligibility under INA § 240A(b)(1). The controlling law to be applied here was that of the Third Circuit. The appeal was dismissed. Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 (BIA 2023).

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: BIA

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Blog Posts

  • BIA Holds That A Conviction For Burglary Of A Building Under New York Penal Law §140.25(1)(d) Is Not Categorically An Aggravated Felony Burglary Offense Under INA §101(a)(43)(G)
  • BIA Invites Public To File Amicus Curiae Briefs Discussing Whether And How To Remedy A Non-compliant NTA.
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) And The Immigration Lawyer
  • BIA Holds That It Has Authority To Accept Untimely Appeals And Consider Them Timely, In Certain Situations
  • Understanding BIA’s Decision on Plea Colloquy in Immigration Removal Cases

Practice Areas

  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • Employment Visa
  • H-1B Work Visas
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133
       

San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Santa Barbara Office
3463 State Street
Suite 516
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2023 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Employment Visa
  • Family Visas
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Practice Areas

Copyright © 2023 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.