Video: Why the BIA’s 212(c) ruling did not stand up to muster at the U.S. Supreme Court – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/WTdGE
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-2/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/appeal-to-bia/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia/
https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-deference-given-to-particulary-serious-crime/
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
The Supreme Court strikes down the BIA 212(c) ruling of ‘comparable ground of excludability’ – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/UYQKN
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-2/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-3/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/appeal-to-bia/
https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-deference-given-to-particulary-serious-crime/
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Video: What is the legal basis the Supreme Court used to rule why the BIA’s 212(c) ruling was arbitrary – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/a43lH
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-2/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/appeal-to-bia/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia/
https://californiaimmigration.us/circuit-court-of-appeal-reverses-bia-denial-of-asylum/
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Video: The new Supreme Court case rules that the BIA rule under 212(c) is arbitrary and capricious – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/Z5966
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-board-of-immigration-appeals/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-board-of-immigration-appeals/
https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-rules-on-step-child/
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
The court found that a translation error in a medical document corroborating Petitioner’s injuries contributed significantly to the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, and stayed the appeal so that Petitioner could present the error to the BIA.
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: #bia, appeal to bia, Atty.Brian D. Lerner, BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, CA6, IJ, Immigration Lawyer, medical document, Motion to Reopen with the BIA, translation | Leave a comment »
Where petitioners sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings, and some of the evidence they submitted was cumulative of evidence they had submitted during their hearing, while some was not, Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to the extent that it pertained to the noncumulative evidence, but lacked jurisdiction to review the decision as it pertained to the cumulative evidence, except to the extent that the petitioners raised a question of law regarding the treatment of that evidence. BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners’ daughter’s new medical condition, which allegedly required reconstructive surgery for a disfigurement on her external ear, did not warrant reopening, but BIA erred where it failed to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners’ supplemental brief and an attached exhibit relating to a new, allegedly precancerous medical condition allegedly incurred by one petitioner’s mother.
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, board of immigration appeal, board of immigration appeals, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Where husband and wife appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying their petitions for asylum and withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, and husband’s petition for review was deemed moot after he died, court of appeals retained jurisdiction to consider wife’s derivative petition because there could be collateral consequences if it was dismissed. Wife’s derivative claim failed because substantial evidence supported immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding against husband where his application and attached declaration were inconsistent–with one stating that he was a Hindu who feared violence by Muslims and the other stating that he was a Muslim who feared violence by Hindus–and where husband’s omission of details was misleading in light of his later claims
BIA issues two crime related decisions
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: #bia, appeal to bia, BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, Motion to Reopen with the BIA | Leave a comment »
Ninth Circuit decisions and those of other circuits provided petitioner, who claimed that ineffective assistance of counsel occurred after a final order of removal had been entered, with fair notice and the ability to anticipate that the Board of Immigration Appeals might have jurisdiction over his claim. District court did not err in dismissing habeas corpus petition for failure to satisfy prudential requirement that petitioner exhaust administrative remedies. Singh v. Napolitano – filed August 23, 2010
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, board immigration appeals, board of immigration appeal, board of immigration appeals, board of labor certification appeals, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
An immigration judge’s jurisdiction on remand from the Board of Immigration Appeals is limited only when the BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose. An articulated purpose for the remand, without any express limit on scope, is not sufficient to limit the remand such that it forecloses consideration of other new claims or motions that the immigration judge deems appropriate or that are presented in accordance with relevant regulations. Immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence where witness testified credibly and consistently that he had prepared and falsified petitioner’s asylum application, as he had done for at least a hundred other clients, and petitioner, to rebut that evidence, relied only on his own testimony, which he eventually admitted was riddled with misrepresentations. Immigration judge’s finding that petitioner filed a frivolous application was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Fernandes v. Holder – filed August 20, 2010.
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: #bia, appeal to bia, BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, Brian D. Lerner, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Judges, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Motion to Reopen with the BIA | Leave a comment »
A new case: Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying late-filed motion to reopen removal proceedings where Guatemalan petitioner’s HIV diagnosis was not new information and was only a change in personal circumstances. Adoption of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement–which petitioner argued could affect access to treatment–did not amount to changed country conditions that resurrected petitioner’s late-filed motion where he failed to show that passage of the treaty was material to his claim. Lopez Almaraz v. Holder
BIA issues two crime related decisions
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 