• 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

BIA Rules That Absence of a Checked Alien Classification Box Does Not Render an NTA Fatally Deficient

The BIA ruled that the absence of a checked alien classification box on a Notice to Appear (NTA) does not, by itself, render an NTA fatally deficient; preclude an immigration judge from exercising jurisdiction over removal proceedings; or terminate proceedings under the Migrant Protection Protocols.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).

on this BIA case:

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).
Headnotes:
(1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.
(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.
Read full decision at https:/

I don’t see how that changes anything

(1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.
(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.

BIA Rules on Firm Resettlement Bar to Asylum

The BIA ruled that for determining the firm resettlement bar to asylum, a viable and available offer to apply for permanent residence in a country of refuge is not negated by an individual’s unwillingness to satisfy the terms of acceptance.

AG William Barr Promotes Immigration Judges with High Asylum Denial Rates

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Trump administration has promoted six judges to the BIA — all of whom have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims. “The [BIA’s] primary function is to ensure rule of law and impartiality, yet the [DOJ] cherry-picked judges from the harshest jurisdictions with the lowest asylum grant rates in the nation

BIA Issues Decision Clarifying Standard of Proof to Establish Marriage Fraud Under INA §204(c)

The BIA issued a decision clarifying the “substantial and probative evidence” standard of proof necessary to bar the approval of a visa petition based on marriage fraud under INA §204(c).

BIA Dismisses Appeal After Finding N‑550 Does Not Confer Citizenship Status if Acquired Unlawfully

The BIA found the respondent removable, holding that it is not necessary to show his intent in order to establish that he is deportable for making a false representation of U.S. citizenship, and also because a Form N‑550 does not confer citizenship status if it is acquired unlawfully.

BIA Dismisses Appeal and Issues Decision on “Realistic Probability”

The BIA found that where an individual has been convicted of violating a state drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the federal controlled substances schedules, the individual must establish a realistic probability that the state would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction.

%d bloggers like this: