There are the forms of inadmissibilities that are eligible for an extreme hardship application. However, the provisional wavier (I-601A) process only applies to the 3- and 10-year bar due to… CONTINUE
Immigration and Inadmissibilities
People who are applying for Immigrant Visas or green cards have to be eligible and not be subject to what are called inadmissibilities. Basically different forms of inadmissibilities could defeat… CONTINUE
Recent Revisions to the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
There has been a recent expansion of what has been called the Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver CI-601A). The original rule was promulgated in 2013, and now this new rule which… 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 One Is Inadmissible Under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) For Making A False Claim To U.S. Citizenship If There Is Evidence That The False Claim Was Made With The Subjective Intent Of Obtaining A “Purpose” Or “Benefit” Under The Act Or Any Federal Or State Law And Where U.S. Citizenship Affects Or Matters To The Purpose Or Benefit Sought. Also, BIA Holds, There Is A Distinction Between Achieving A Purpose And Obtaining A Benefit Under This Section Of The INA And Avoiding Removal Proceedings Is A “Purpose” Thereunder.
On July 28, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) in a lengthy and densely-reasoned opinion, issued a precedent decision analyzing INA §212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) on remand from the 2nd… 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 That The “Material Support Bar” Of INA 212§(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) Contains No Implied Exception For The Provision Of Material Support To A Terrorist Organization While Under Duress And, Absent A Waiver, One Who Affords Such Support Is Inadmissible And Statutorily Barred From Establishing Eligibility For Asylum, Withholding Of Removal, Or CAT Relief.
On June 9, 2016 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in a decision on remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, held that there is no duress… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That the Circumstance – Specific Approach Is Properly Applied When Analyzing The “Domestic” Nature of An Offense To Determine Whether The Conviction Is For A Crime Of Domestic Violence Under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i). The Board Also Holds That Where A Respondent’s Original Sentence Documentation Is Ambiguous As To Whether He Was Sentenced To Probation Or A Probated Term Of Imprisonment, DHS Must Give Effect To A Clarification Order Issued By The Sentencing Judge To Determine If Respondent Was Sentenced To A Term Of Imprisonment Of At Least 1 Year And Thus Was Convicted Of An Aggravated Felony Crime Of Violence Under INA §101(a)(43)(F).
On May 27, 2016 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sought to determine the process for considering whether a conviction for simple battery in Georgia, a categorical crime… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That, Within The Jurisdiction Of The Ninth Circuit, An Arizona Conviction For Solicitation To Posses Marijuana For Sale Is A Conviction For A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude That Establishes A Defendant’s Inadmissibility Under INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) And, Because This Is “An Offense Identified In Section §212(a)(2),” The Defendant Is Properly Considered An Arriving Alien Under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v). Matter of Vo, 25 I&N Dec. 426 (BIA 2011) Clarified.
On May 19, 2016, the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent who was convicted of solicitation to possess marijuana for sale, an Arizona… CONTINUE
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- …
- 38
- Next Page »
