A grant of Family Unity Program benefits does not constitute an â€œadmissionâ€ to the United States under section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), for purposes of establishing that an alien has accrued the requisite 7-year period of continuous residence after having been â€œadmitted in any statusâ€ to be eligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1229b(a)(2) (2006).
For purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1255(a) (2006), an alien seeking to show that he or she has been â€œadmittedâ€ to the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), need only prove procedural regularity in his or her entry, which does not require the alien to be questioned by immigration authorities or be admitted in a particular status. Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980),
The misdemeanor offense of assault and battery against a family or household member in violation of section 18.2-57.2(A) of the Virginia Code Annotated is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. Â§ 16(a) (2006) and therefore not categorically a crime
of domestic violence within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2006).
Denial of application for asylum was not error because substantial evidence supported conclusion by immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals that harassment of South Vietnamese refugees in Italy by unknown assailants–which petitioners attributed to communists–was not committed either by the Italian government or by forces that government was unable or unwilling to control.
Truong v. Holder
Another new Asylum case:
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Where petitionerâ€™s testimony that he was persecuted in Ghana on account of his attempts to convert Muslims to the Baptist faith was deemed credible, Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that he failed to show authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers. Remand was required as to petitionerâ€™s asylum claim where he demonstrated past persecution, and it was unclear whether the BIA placed the requisite burden of proof on the government to show that petitioner could, if returned to Ghana, safely relocate within the country and that it would be reasonable for him to do so.
Afriyie v. Holder – filed July 26, 2010
Cite as 08-72626
Full text http://ping.fm/dgkDc
Where petitioner testified that he was persecuted first in Iran by the government on account of his political activity and later in the Netherlands by Muslim extremists on account of his conversion to Christianity, substantial evidence supported immigration judgeâ€™s denial of asylum from and withholding of removal to the Netherlands, even though judge deemed petitionerâ€™s testimony credible, because petitioner who failed to show that Dutch authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers did not show that he suffered past persecution in the Netherlands and that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable.
Rahimzadeh v. Holder
A new case on Asylum: Where petitionerâ€™s testimony that he was persecuted in Ghana on account of his attempts to convert Muslims to the Baptist faith was deemed credible, Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that he failed to show authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers. Remand was required as to petitionerâ€™s asylum claim where he demonstrated past persecution, and it was unclear whether the BIA placed the requisite burden of proof on the government to show that petitioner could, if returned to Ghana, safely relocate within the country and that it would be reasonable for him to do so.
Afriyie v. Holder
Alienâ€™s inability to speak English, detention for two months in an immigration detention center, and transfer of his case after he moved from Arizona to California failed to explain how alien was prevented from filing an asylum application within one year of his arrival and did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances,” individually or collectively, justifying alienâ€™s untimely filing.
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder – filed December 1, 2009,.
As many of you know, the Arizona Immigration Law was supposed to go into effect today. However, the Federal Judge enjoined the most egregious portions yesterday thereby stopping the enforcement of this unconstitutional law. The Governors attempt to use the backdoor method of trying to enforce the immigration laws and by being racist (as indicated by her remarks that all aliens are ‘pack mules’ for the drug cartels, makes it incredulous that she was ever elected. When she tells the federal government to essentially bring it on, they did just that. The federal government filed a lawsuit against the Arizona Immigration Law basically stating that a State cannot legislate its own immigration policy when that immigration is regulated, enforced mandated by the federal government.
While the federal immigration system is somewhat broken and definitely needs an overhaul, it must be enacted by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. It simply cannot be enacted by States. The law in Arizona (which mostly has been enjoined from proceeding forward) was an attempt to have local police officers basically profile people who ‘look’ like they are illegal and then follow-up with questions to ultimately put them in deportation proceedings and/or deport them.
This is America and everybody comes from somewhere else. It is a mixing pot of people from all around the world. Thus, when the Arizona law stated that it allowed questioning of persons who ‘look’ illegal, that is a very racist way of basically saying anyone that was Mexican would be questioned. This is not the way America works and it is a disgrace that Arizona would pass such a law. If the purpose of the passage of the law (other than being racist) was for economic reasons, it is in fact having the opposite effect. In fact, many organizations worldwide are boycotting Arizona. Companies which had conferences are pulling out and items made and distributed in Arizona are being boycotted. Thus, while for some reason the Governor of Arizona thought it would be smooth sailing to sign a racist, profiling and unconstitutional immigration law, the bottom economic line of Arizona is now feeling it.
It is quite certain that Arizona will most likely appeal the Federal Judges decision and there will be considerably more litigation on this matter before it is concluded, it should be a wake up call for other States thinking of enacting similarly racist bills and laws. The U.S. will not simply sit around and let racist laws which go against the very core of what it is to be an American to be passed and to eat away at our freedoms and the constitution itself.
We all must fight this type of legislation through the Courts, peaceful protests and boycotts. Immigration Lawyers will constantly bring these matters to Court and fight for the foreign national. For now, the lawsuits will proceed forward. Hopefully, more people and organizations will boycott Arizona to teach the Governor and legislators of Arizona that they must abide by the constitution and that the simple racism and unfairness of such a law is unfair and cruel to the people whom it targets.
A USCIS news release and Q&As on the agency-wide Policy Review including the first 10 issue areas for review, public survey results and how the Policy Review will change USCIS policy. The issue areas include H-1Bs, family-based adjustment of status, Form I-601 and more.
Filed under: Adjustment of Status, Family Petition, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Policy Review | Tagged: Adjustment of Status, Family Petition, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Policy Review | Leave a comment »
A report from Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on “Deportation by Default: Mental Disability, Unfair Hearings and Indefinite Detention in the US Immigration System.” The report includes input from the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.
Filed under: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Deportation, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Tagged: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Deportation, Human Rights Watch (HRW), Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »