• Hours & Info

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

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Supreme Court Denies Rehearing in United States v. Texas

the U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment the DOJ’s request to rehear United States v. Texas once a ninth Supreme Court justice is confirmed.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationattorney/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigrationlawyer/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/best-immigration-lawyer/

https://californiaimmigration.us/our-immigration-law-firm/

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.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-court/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-court-proceedings/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/mentally-incompetent/

https://californiaimmigration.us/removal/deportation-2/

Immigration Judge harassed you?

  1. In a published decision the BIA remanded the record to the immigration court for a new hearing before a different Immigration Judge (IJ), finding that conduct by an IJ that can be perceived as bullying or hostile is never appropriate, particularly in cases involving minor respondents, and may result in remand to a different IJ. The BIA also held that the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the admission of expert testimony are inapposite to a respondent’s testimony regarding events of which he or she has personal knowledge.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/23-new-immigration-judges/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-judge/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/federal-judge/

https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-remands-case-back-to-the-judge/

The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) issued a security directive prohibiting use by the public of electronic devices, including cell phones, cameras, laptops, tablets, and MP3 players, in EOIR space, encompassing courtrooms, entrances/exits, corridors, conference rooms, and waiting areas. Attorneys or representatives of record, active members of a State Bar, and DHS attorneys representing the government in proceedings before the EOIR are permitted to use electronic devices in EOIR space for the limited purpose of conducting relevant court or business activities.

An appeals court

Copy of immigration court

Court order

Immigration court

The Associated Press

The Associated Press reports that the nation’s already backlogged immigration courts might soon be thrown into more havoc as roughly half of their 220 judges will be eligible for retirement next year http://ow.ly/sx4mg

Immigration court

Immigration court proceedings

Immigration court practice manual

Deportation proceedings

H-1B Cap for FY2011

USCIS announces  that  it has received a sufficient number of H-1B petitions to reach the statutory cap of 65,000 visas for fiscal year 2011 since the filing window opened on April 1 last year.

Decision on Review of Sua Sponte Reopening

The court held that the Supreme Court decision, Kucana v. Holder, did not change the court’s holding in Ekimian v. INS that there is no sufficiently meaningful standard to allow court review of sua sponte reopening. (Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 1/27/11)

New York Penal Law §263.05

The court held that New York Penal Law §263.05, use of a child in a sexual performance, is not divisible, and any conviction under it is categorically an aggravated felony offense involving sexual abuse of a minor offense. (Oouch 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)

Petitioner’s Ignorance of Christian Doctrine

The court reversed the adverse credibility finding as improperly based on the IJ’s perception of Petitioner’s ignorance of Christian doctrine, misstatements that did not go to the heart of the claim, and insufficient evidence of evasiveness. (Li v. Holder, 1/19/11)