Another new case re: ‘Son’: An individual whose mother is a U.S. citizen continues to be “the son of a citizen of the United States,” as set forth at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(1)(H)(i), after his mother’s death.
Federico v. Holder
Filed under: Citizenship | Tagged: Citizenship, citizenship application, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, U.S. Citizenship, US Citizen | Leave a comment »
Another new case re: ‘Son’: An individual whose mother is a U.S. citizen continues to be “the son of a citizen of the United States,” as set forth at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(1)(H)(i), after his mother’s death.
Federiso v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Another case in the 9th Circuit:
-Immigration Law-
Arizona law criminalizing sexual conduct with a minor under 18 years of age does not meet the federal generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor and is not an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration law.
Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder – filed May 20, 2010
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
(1) The 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(2010) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or after the 1996 promulgation of the regulations.
(2) The 5-year limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear at deportation proceedings under former section 242B(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1994), is not in conflict with, and does not provide an exception to, the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
Find a good deportation lawyer
Filed under: Deportation | Tagged: Deportation, deportation attorney, deportation lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
A new case from the BIA: (1) The 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)(2010) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or after the 1996 promulgation of the regulations.
(2) The 5-year limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear at deportation proceedings under former section 242B(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1994), is not in conflict with, and does not provide an exception to, the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
A new case regarding aggravated felonies:
-Immigration Law-
Offense of aggravated assault under the Canada Criminal Code is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.
Uppal v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Immigration judge had discretion to require corroborating evidence from an otherwise credible witness in an asylum hearing. Judge did not err in barring asylum application as untimely in the absence of corroboration of petitioner’s date of entry or an explanation for the deficiency.
Singh v. Holder
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylum, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
A new case on Asylum: Immigration judge had discretion to require corroborating evidence from an otherwise credible witness in an asylum hearing. Judge did not err in barring asylum application as untimely in the absence of corroboration of petitioner’s date of entry or an explanation for the deficiency.
Singh v. Holder
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 