The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in concluding that the petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a)(3), finding that a conviction for receipt of embezzled property under 18 USC §659 is not an aggravated felony under the categorical approach
On rehearing, the First Circuit vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded, holding that under Moncrieffe v. Holder the petitioner’s 2006 Maine conviction for assault was not a “crime of violence,” and thus, the petitioner was eligible to seek cancellation of removal.
In a non precedent decision, the AAO held that the petitioner, a judo athlete transitioning his career from competing to coaching, met the burden of proof necessary to establish his eligibility as an individual “of extraordinary ability” in athletics pursuant to INA §203(b)(1)(A).
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA decision, finding the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because he lacked good moral character as a “habitual drunkard.” The court remanded, holding that the petitioner could bring an equal protection challenge because there is no rational basis to classify persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as innately lacking good moral character.
The First Circuit concluded that the BIA abused its discretion when it found that the circumstances attendant to the entry of an in absentia removal order against a young undocumented immigrant who was ill-served by two attorneys were not exceptional. Accordingly, the court remanded to the BIA with instructions to set aside the in absentia removal order and reopen the petitioner’s removal proceedings.
Where recruitment expired on a Saturday but the PERM application filed by mail was not received until Monday, BALCA overturned the Certifying Officer’s denial of the labor certification, finding that sufficient documentation was submitted to prove the date of mailing, and thus that the PERM application was timely filed.