Posted on December 13, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
BIA held that the “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum applications pursuant to INA §208(b)(1)(B)(i) also applies to applications for withholding of removal under §241(b)(3)(A). Matter of C-T-L, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA 2010).
33.767524
-118.189993
Filed under: Applications for Withholding of Removal, Asylum Application, BIA, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Tagged: Applications for Withholding of Removal, Asylum Application, BIA, Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | Leave a comment »
Posted on August 23, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Posted on July 30, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Denial of application for asylum was not error because substantial evidence supported conclusion by immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals that harassment of South Vietnamese refugees in Italy by unknown assailants–which petitioners attributed to communists–was not committed either by the Italian government or by forces that government was unable or unwilling to control.
Truong v. Holder
Appeal asylum
People seeking asylum into the U.S
Asylum applicants
Asylum
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, california asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on July 30, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-Immigration Law-
Where petitioner’s testimony that he was persecuted in Ghana on account of his attempts to convert Muslims to the Baptist faith was deemed credible, Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that he failed to show authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers. Remand was required as to petitioner’s asylum claim where he demonstrated past persecution, and it was unclear whether the BIA placed the requisite burden of proof on the government to show that petitioner could, if returned to Ghana, safely relocate within the country and that it would be reasonable for him to do so.
Afriyie v. Holder – filed July 26, 2010
Cite as 08-72626
Full text http://ping.fm/dgkDc
-Immigration Law-
Where petitioner testified that he was persecuted first in Iran by the government on account of his political activity and later in the Netherlands by Muslim extremists on account of his conversion to Christianity, substantial evidence supported immigration judge’s denial of asylum from and withholding of removal to the Netherlands, even though judge deemed petitioner’s testimony credible, because petitioner who failed to show that Dutch authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers did not show that he suffered past persecution in the Netherlands and that his fear of future persecution was objectively reasonable.
Rahimzadeh v. Holder.
Asylum
Asylum agreements
Appeal asylum
Appeal for asylum
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Refugee and Asylee follow-to-Join cases | Leave a comment »
Posted on July 30, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
A new case on Asylum: Where petitioner’s testimony that he was persecuted in Ghana on account of his attempts to convert Muslims to the Baptist faith was deemed credible, Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that he failed to show authorities were unable or unwilling to control his attackers. Remand was required as to petitioner’s asylum claim where he demonstrated past persecution, and it was unclear whether the BIA placed the requisite burden of proof on the government to show that petitioner could, if returned to Ghana, safely relocate within the country and that it would be reasonable for him to do so.
Afriyie v. Holder
Asylum case
Adjudication of asylum
Asylum and immigration
How to apply for political asylum
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylum, asylum 2.0, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, california asylum attorney, frivolous asylum application, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, los angeles asylum attorney, united states asylum attorney | Leave a comment »
Posted on July 30, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Alien’s inability to speak English, detention for two months in an immigration detention center, and transfer of his case after he moved from Arizona to California failed to explain how alien was prevented from filing an asylum application within one year of his arrival and did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances,” individually or collectively, justifying alien’s untimely filing.
Toj-Culpatan v. Holder – filed December 1, 2009,.
Appeal asylum
Asylum
Asylum attorney
Asylum applicants
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, asylum 2.0, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on June 29, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Ninth overrules in favor of asylee. Court of appeals had jurisdiction to review determination that petitioner did not timely file his asylum application where the underlying fact that petitioner arrived in the United States less than one year before filing his asylum application was undisputed. Petitioner’s testimony that that he hid in China until less than one year before he applied for asylum was clear and convincing evidence that he did so, and immigration judge erred in concluding that proof of an exact arrival date was necessary. Immigration judge did not err in denying request for withholding of removal on the basis that petitioner had not established a likelihood that he would be subject to persecution where Chinese authorities searched for petitioner only on account of his assistance to a Falun Gong practitioner, not his political opinion or religion. Petitioner did not qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture where the actions of Chinese authorities suggested, at most, that he might be subject to interrogation or punishment for his assistance to the escapee. Lin v. Holder
Adjudication of asylum
Appeal Asylum
Asylum meaning
Asylum case
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on May 27, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
Another case in the 9th Circuit re: forced abortion and asylum for the husband:
-Immigration Law-
Attorney general’s interpretation of INA Sec. 101(a)(42)–that statute does not prevent the spouse of a person who has physically undergone a forced abortion or sterilization procedure from qualifying for political asylum–was entitled to Chevron deference. Forced abortion, in which alien was not a willing participant, and alien’s continued attempts to cohabit and marry in contravention of China’s population control policy, in the face of denial of an official marriage license, constituted “other resistance to a coercive population control program” required to establish persecution. Alien established persecution on account of his resistance to a coercive population control policy where he was expelled from school due to his romantic relationship with his future wife, which was legally prohibited; detained after attempting to obtain a marriage license; forced to pay a heavy fine to secure his release; resisted China’s official population control policy of prohibiting underage marriage by organizing and participating in a traditional wedding ceremony; and was forced to go into hiding when authorities arrived at his home and attempted to arrest him on the day of the wedding. Protections of Sec. 101(a)(42)(B) apply to husbands whose marriages would be legally recognized but for China’s coercive family planning policies, and not only to husbands whose marriages are recognized by Chinese authorities.
Jiang v. Holder
Asylum
Appeal asylum
Asylum applicants
Asylum meaning
Filed under: Asylum Application | Tagged: asylee, asylum, asylum 2.0, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, california asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on May 22, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
(1) In making a frivolousness determination, an Immigration Judge may incorporate by reference any factual findings made in support of an adverse credibility finding, so long as the Immigration Judge makes explicit findings that the incredible aspects of the asylum application were material and were deliberately fabricated. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), clarified.
(2) In considering an asylum applicant’s explanations for inconsistencies or discrepancies, an Immigration Judge making a frivolousness determination must separately address the
applicant’s explanations in the context of how they may have a bearing on the materiality and deliberateness requirements unique to that determination.
(3) When the required frivolousness warnings have been given to an asylum applicant prior to the merits hearing, the Immigration Judge is not required to afford additional warnings or to seek further explanation in regard to inconsistencies that have become obvious
during the course of the hearing.
Asylum
Appeal asylum
Apply for asylum
Asylum seekers
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylee, asylum, Asylum Applicants, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, asylum officer, asylum petition, california asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Posted on May 19, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Lawyer & Deportation Attorney
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
Asylum
Appeal asylum
Asylum agreements
Asylum seekers
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylum, Asylum Application, asylum attorney, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 