Removal Proceedings and the Notice to Appear – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/eWunI
Removal or deportation hearings
Filed under: Removal Proceedings | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Removal, removal order, removal orders, Removal Proceedings | Leave a comment »
Removal Proceedings and the Notice to Appear – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/eWunI
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Removal and Marriage Fruad – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/4zol1
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/removal-proceedings/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/removal/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/marriage-fraud/
https://californiaimmigration.us/removal/
Filed under: Removal and Marriage Fruad | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, marriage fraud, Removal, removal order, Removal Proceedings | Leave a comment »
Removal and Marriage Fruad – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/4zol1
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Deportation and Removal Proceedings on Removability – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/WPLgt
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/best-deportation-attorney/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/best-deportation-lawyer/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/deportation/
Filed under: Deportation | Tagged: Deportation, deportation attorney, deportation lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, removability, Removal, Removal or Deportation Hearings, removal order, Removal Proceedings | Leave a comment »
Deportation and Removal Proceedings on Removability – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/WPLgt
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
An alien is not independently “grandfathered†for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) (2006), simply by virtue of marriage to another alien who is “grandfathered†under section 245(i) as the result of having been a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition.
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationattorney/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationlawyer/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/adjustment-of-status/
https://californiaimmigration.us/adjustment-of-status/
Filed under: Adjustment of Status | Tagged: adjusment of status, adjustment, Adjustment of Status, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
An alien is not independently “grandfathered†for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) (2006), simply by virtue of marriage to another alien who is “grandfathered†under section 245(i) as the result of having been a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Where petitioners sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings, and some of the evidence they submitted was cumulative of evidence they had submitted during their hearing, while some was not, Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to the extent that it pertained to the noncumulative evidence, but lacked jurisdiction to review the decision as it pertained to the cumulative evidence, except to the extent that the petitioners raised a question of law regarding the treatment of that evidence. BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners’ daughter’s new medical condition, which allegedly required reconstructive surgery for a disfigurement on her external ear, did not warrant reopening, but BIA erred where it failed to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners’ supplemental brief and an attached exhibit relating to a new, allegedly precancerous medical condition allegedly incurred by one petitioner’s mother.
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, board of immigration appeal, board of immigration appeals, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Where petitioners sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings, and some of the evidence they submitted was cumulative of evidence they had submitted during their hearing, while some was not, Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to the extent that it pertained to the noncumulative evidence, but lacked jurisdiction to review the decision as it pertained to the cumulative evidence, except to the extent that the petitioners raised a question of law regarding the treatment of that evidence. BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners’ daughter’s new medical condition, which allegedly required reconstructive surgery for a disfigurement on her external ear, did not warrant reopening, but BIA erred where it failed to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners’ supplemental brief and an attached exhibit relating to a new, allegedly precancerous medical condition allegedly incurred by one petitioner’s mother.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 