• Hours & Info

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

  • Past Blog Posts

ACLU and Center for Gender and Refugee Studies Reach FOIA Settlement Agreement with ICE

The ACLU and the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies reached a settlementagreement with ICE in a suit brought regarding delays in the production of information requested via FOIA on ICE’s detention of asylum seekers who are found to have a credible fear of persecution. Among other things, ICE agreed to provide an informal description of the documents withheld in their entirety and written justification for such withholding.

Question: What if I know somebody in question is not married, but still being beaten by her husband and has escaped to the U.S. Can she apply for this kind of asylum?

Answer: In this case, there is actually an unpublished case that allows this to go forward. However, even without this case, it is possible. You will have to define the social group differently. In this case, I can see some group similarly referencing women that are being beaten, but are in ‘common law’ marriages and/or who have kids that have suffered, etc.

Question: What if my country has laws against domestic violence? Will I not be able to apply?

The Council Files Lawsuit Challenging CBP’s Unlawful Practice of Turning Away Asylum Seekers

The American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham and Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. border with Mexico. The individual plaintiffs endured arduous journeys to the U.S. border, and their experiences demonstrate that CBP uses a variety of tactics to deny bona fide asylum seekers the opportunity to pursue their claims.

Court Finds Nicaraguan Petitioner Did Not Make a Misrepresentation on His Adjustment Application

The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review, finding that because the petitioner had not been confined in a prison but rather had been detained in a rebel-controlled trailer in the jungle, he did not willfully make a material misrepresentation on his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident when he answered “no” to Question 17 on his application, and thus he was not removable under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).

BIA Says Asylum Grantee Who Adjusts to LPR Status Under INA §209(b) Terminates His or Her Asylee Status

Clarifying Matter of C-J-H-, the BIA held that a noncitizen who adjusts status under INA §209(b) changes his or her status from that of a noncitizen granted asylum to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence, thereby terminating his or her asylee status. The BIA further held that the restrictions on removal in INA §208(c)(1)(A) do not apply to a noncitizen granted asylum whose status is adjusted to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence pursuant to INA §209(b).

BIA Says Noncitizens Who Assist in Persecution Need Not Have a Persecutory Motive to Be Subject to the Persecutor Bar

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that the persecutor bar in INA §241(b)(3)(B)(i) applies to a noncitizen who assists or otherwise participates in the persecution of an individual because of that person’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, without regard to the noncitizen’s personal motivation for assisting or participating in the persecution. The court found that the persecutor bar applied to the Salvadoran respondent because, regardless of his own motives, he assisted in the persecution of an individual because of the individual’s political opinion. Accordingly, the court concluded that the respondent failed to establish that he was eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA.

8th Circuit rules against asylee

The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the Guatemalan petitioner had not demonstrated that the record compelled the finding that his subjective fear of persecution was objectively reasonable. The court thus found that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and BIA’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum.

%d bloggers like this: