A grant of Family Unity Program benefits does not constitute an “admission” to the United States under section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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 “admitted in any status” to be eligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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. § 1255(a) (2006), an alien seeking to show that he or she has been “admitted” to the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 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),
reaffirmed.

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. § 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. § 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

-Immigration Law-
Where petitioner’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 petitioner’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

-Immigration Law-
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 judge’s denial of asylum from and withholding of removal to the Netherlands, even though judge deemed petitioner’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 petitioner’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 petitioner’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

Alien’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 alien’s untimely filing.
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder – filed December 1, 2009,.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 118,436 other followers