Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The Ninth Circuit held that the statutory criminal bar to judicial review, INA §242(a)(2)(C), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to review the denial of a procedural motion, such as a motion for a continuance, that rests on a ground independent of the conviction that triggered the bar. The court denied the petition for review, however, because it found that the Immigration Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to continue.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: 9th circuit, jurisdiction of appellate court, jurisdictional stripping, motion to continue, ninth circuit, Petition for Review | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely motion to reopen, because his lawyer’s advice to pursue a form of immigration relief for which the petitioner was statutorily ineligible constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) with instructions to grant the petitioner’s motion to reopen
BIA rules on adverse credibility findings based on fraudulent documents
Board of immigration appeals
Motion to reopen with the BIA
BIA issues two crime related decisions
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: #bia, appeal to bia, BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, board of immigration appeals, iac, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, ineffective assistance of counsel, motion to reopen, Motion to Reopen with the BIA, MTR | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely motion to reopen, because his lawyer’s advice to pursue a form of immigration relief for which the petitioner was statutorily ineligible constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) with instructions to grant the petitioner’s motion to reopen.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: BIA, board of immigration appeals, iac, ineffective assistance of counsel, motion to reopen, MTR | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
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
Filed under: Immigration Court | Tagged: cell phone, district court, electronic devices, EOIR, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Court, Immigration Lawyer, Supreme Court, us district court, US Supreme Court | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
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.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: cell phone, electronic devices, EOIR, Immigration Court | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that where an applicant filed an asylum application before the May 11, 2005, effective date of the REAL ID Act of 2005, and, on or after that date, submitted a subsequent application that is properly viewed as a new application, the later filing date controls for purposes of determining the applicability of INA §208(b)(1)(B)(iii) to credibility determinations. The BIA further held that a subsequent asylum application is properly viewed as a new application if it presents a previously unraised basis for relief, or is predicated on a new or substantially different factual basis.
Appeal asylum
Asylum attorney
Asylum claim
How to apply for political asylum
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, asylum 2.0, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, california asylum attorney, Credibility Determination, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 24, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that where an applicant filed an asylum application before the May 11, 2005, effective date of the REAL ID Act of 2005, and, on or after that date, submitted a subsequent application that is properly viewed as a new application, the later filing date controls for purposes of determining the applicability of INA §208(b)(1)(B)(iii) to credibility determinations. The BIA further held that a subsequent asylum application is properly viewed as a new application if it presents a previously unraised basis for relief, or is predicated on a new or substantially different factual basis.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: asylum, Credibility Determination | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 5, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Matter of D-M-C-P, 26 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2015)
(1) Neither an Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.
(2) It is improper to deem an application for relief abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the biometrics filing requirement where the record does not reflect that the applicant received notification advisories concerning that requirement, was given a deadline for submitting the biometrics, and was advised of the consequences of his or her failure to comply.
BIA rules on expert testimony and factual findings
BIA pro bono project
Board of immigration appeals
BIA issues two crime related decisions
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: #bia, appeal to bia, asylum, BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, biometrics information, IJ, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Judges, Immigration Lawyer, Motion to Reopen with the BIA | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 5, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Matter of D-M-C-P, 26 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2015)
(1) Neither an Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.
(2) It is improper to deem an application for relief abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the biometrics filing requirement where the record does not reflect that the applicant received notification advisories concerning that requirement, was given a deadline for submitting the biometrics, and was advised of the consequences of his or her failure to comply.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: asylum, biometrics, IJ, Immigration Judges | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 5, 2015 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied motions to dismiss Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) and unjust enrichment claims in a federal class action lawsuit filed by nine federal immigrant detainees against The GEO Group, Inc., a private prison contractor, alleging violations for unpaid wages and forced labor. This is the first time that a court has found that a for-profit immigrant detention contractor may be held liable for violating the TVPA.
Visa waiver
A visa
USCIS publishes interim Rule on T nonimmigrants
Visas
Filed under: T VISA | Tagged: Immigrant Visa, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, slave labor, Student Visa, T Visa, Tourist Visa, trafficking crime, unpaid wages | Leave a comment »
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 