A new case regarding aggravated felonies:
-Immigration Law-
Offense of aggravated assault under the Canada Criminal Code is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
Uppal v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Immigration judge had discretion to require corroborating evidence from an otherwise credible witness in an asylum hearing. Judge did not err in barring asylum application as untimely in the absence of corroboration of petitioner’s date of entry or an explanation for the deficiency.
Singh v. Holder
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylum, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
A new case on Asylum: Immigration judge had discretion to require corroborating evidence from an otherwise credible witness in an asylum hearing. Judge did not err in barring asylum application as untimely in the absence of corroboration of petitioner’s date of entry or an explanation for the deficiency.
Singh v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-Immigration Law-
Where alien was granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis based on a petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife, but wife withdrew her support of petition before it was adjudicated, burden shifted from government to alien to prove marriage had been entered into in good faith. Immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was supported by inconsistencies between alien’s testimony and that of his wife and another witness he presented. Given these inconsistencies, IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that alien’s marriage was fraudulent was supported by sufficient evidence. Alien could not seek a waiver based on extreme hardship from IJ in the first instance or request a continuance to pursue a waiver application. Because alien’s extreme hardship argument was based on the effect his removal would have on his family from a second marriage, which did not yet exist when he was a conditional resident, alien would not qualify for a waiver. Since government had proffered wife’s testimony and affidavit to impeach alien’s testimony, government was not required to give alien notice of such evidence 15 days prior to hearing. Alien was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial because he was able to present his version of events, cross-examine witnesses, and have his own witness testify on his behalf.
Hammad v. Holder
Adjustment granted with fraud and marriages
Filed under: Fraudulent Marriages | Tagged: Fraudulent Marriages, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
A new case on fraudulent marriages:
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-Immigration Law-
Where alien was granted permanent resident status on a conditional basis based on a petition filed by his U.S. citizen wife, but wife withdrew her support of petition before it was adjudicated, burden shifted from government to alien to prove marriage had been entered into in good faith. Immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding was supported by inconsistencies between alien’s testimony and that of his wife and another witness he presented. Given these inconsistencies, IJ’s and BIA’s conclusion that alien’s marriage was fraudulent was supported by sufficient evidence. Alien could not seek a waiver based on extreme hardship from IJ in the first instance or request a continuance to pursue a waiver application. Because alien’s extreme hardship argument was based on the effect his removal would have on his family from a second marriage, which did not yet exist when he was a conditional resident, alien would not qualify for a waiver. Since government had proffered wife’s testimony and affidavit to impeach alien’s testimony, government was not required to give alien notice of such evidence 15 days prior to hearing. Alien was not deprived of a fundamentally fair trial because he was able to present his version of events, cross-examine witnesses, and have his own witness testify on his behalf.
Hammad v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
–Immigration Law-
Petitioner’s unborn daughter was not a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship where she did not meet the statutory definition of “child” at the time of petitioner’s hearing.
Partap v. Holder
Cancellation of removal meaning
Filed under: Cancellation of Removal | Tagged: Cancellation of Removal, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Reinstatement of Removal, Removal, Removal or Deportation Hearings, removal order, removal orders, Removal Proceedings | Leave a comment »
A new case on Cancellation of Removal:
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
–Immigration Law-
Petitioner’s unborn daughter was not a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship where she did not meet the statutory definition of “child” at the time of petitioner’s hearing.
Partap v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
This client is under 245(i) because spouse filed an I-130 on 1/05/1998 so no physical presence requirement of December 20, 2000. She committed fraud by claiming to be a U.S. Citizen, but normally, this would be a permanent bar to admissibility. We argued that it was pre IRAIRA and only a fraud waiver was needed. USCIS agreed and now she is a Lawful Permanent Resident.
Filed under: I-130 | Tagged: Approved I-130, filing I-130 online, I-130, I-130 Filing Locations, i-130 for gay marriages, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Stand-Alone I-130 Filing Locations | Leave a comment »
Another win for The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC. This client is under 245(i) because spouse filed an I-130 on 1/05/1998 so no physical presence requirement of December 20, 2000. She committed fraud by claiming to be a U.S. Citizen, but normally, this would be a permanent bar to admissibility. We argued that it was pre IRAIRA and only a fraud waiver was needed. USCIS agreed and now she is a Lawful Permanent Resident.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 