• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Social

  • Past Blog Posts

IA Says Probationary Confinement in Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Is “Term of Confinement”

  1. BIA Says Probationary Confinement in Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Is “Term of Confinement”
    In a published decision issued today, the BIA held that a term of confinement in a substance abuse treatment facility imposed as a condition of probation constitutes a “term of confinement” under INA §101(a)(48)(B) for purposes of determining if an offense is a crime of violence under INA §101(a)(43)(F).

Mentally incompetent in Immigration Court?

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA found that neither the government nor the respondent bears a formal burden of proof in immigration proceedings to establish whether or not the respondent is mentally competent, but where indicia of incompetency are identified, the Immigration Judge (IJ) should determine if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the respondent is competent. Further, the BIA held that an IJ’s finding of competency is a finding of fact that the BIA can review to determine if it is clearly erroneous.

Stop-Time Rule for Cancellation

Today, the BIA issued two precedent decisions addressing the issue of whether evidence that photographs and fingerprints were taken in conjunction with a noncitizen’s voluntary departure or return constitutes a formal, documented process sufficient to break continuous physical presence for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal, where the noncitizen had the right to appear before an Immigration Judge but was not informed of that right. In the first decision, the BIA held that such evidence was not sufficient, in the absence of evidence that the noncitizen was informed of and waived the right to a hearing. In the second decision, the BIA found that this rule applies regardless of whether the encounter in which the noncitizen was photographed and fingerprinted occurred at or near the border.

The Board of Immigration Appeals cannot simply ignore the evidence.

The Second Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and remanded, finding that it was unable to meaningfully review the agency’s removability determination, because the BIA had failed to consider material evidence—namely, the petitioner’s 1994 marriage certificate. On remand, the BIA was instructed to evaluate the authenticity of the marriage certificate, and to articulate the standard the agency applies when assessing the credibility of an individual who testifies on matters concerning removability in a contested removal proceeding.

How Petitioner violated Cal. Health & Safety Code §11352(a)?

The court remanded, finding the record inconclusive as to how Petitioner violated Cal. Health & Safety Code §11352(a), and that the BIA erred in concluding he had been convicted of an aggravated felony trafficking offense. (Young v. Holder, 1/28/11)

Court rejected Petitioner’s argument

The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the 3-page opinion issued by a single BIA member could only have been appropriately rendered by a 3-member panel, and that 8 CFR §1003.1 clearly allows a single member to issue such an opinion. (Ward v. Holder, 1/21/11)

Court Uphold BIA denial of family planning claim

The court found that the harm inflicted on Petitioner, who was punched repeatedly by family planning officials and detained for two days after his wife was taken away for an abortion, did not rise to the level of persecution. (Liu v. Holder, 1/24/11)

%d bloggers like this: