In what may be the 1st pro-respondent decision of the Barr Era, on October 8, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained an individual’s appeal and terminated… CONTINUE
Expert Testimony in an Immigration Case
On September 25, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained in part a DHS appeal, remanding the record to the Immigration Judge (IJ) after hearing oral argument;… CONTINUE
Reviewing A Grant Of Asylum
On September 24, 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 its… CONTINUE
Deprived Of A Full And Fair Hearing
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 Invites Amicus Curiae Briefs Addressing The Situation Where The Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) Notice And Advisal Sheets Are Not Signed Or Otherwise Acknowledged By Any Respondent Of Record, And The Record Contains No Specific Attestation, From Any Party, That The Respondents Received Specific Advisals Adequate To Allow Them To Appear At The Scheduled Hearing From Their Locations In Contiguous Territory, Whether Notice Of The Hearing Is Adequate To Satisfy Due Process.
On September 4, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) welcomed interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs addressing the above-referenced issue, explaining that those… 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
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- …
- 38
- Next Page »
