• 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 Decision regarding the Walsh Waiver

Matter of CALCANO DE MILLAN, 26 I&N Dec. 904 (BIA 2017)
For purposes of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, and section 204(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I) (2012), a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident petitioner has been “convicted” of an offense where either a formal judgment of guilt has been entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where (1) a plea, finding, or admission of facts established the petitioner’s guilt and (2) a judge ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on his or her liberty.

Court Reverses Denial of Asylum to Homosexual Petitioner from Mexico

The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the BIA’s denial of asylum to a homosexual citizen of Mexico, finding that the petitioner had shown that Mexican officials were unable or unwilling to protect him from harm by private individuals due to his sexual orientation, and thus that he had established past persecution. The court also concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a presumption of future persecution, and remanded for the BIA to consider whether that presumption was rebutted, and also to consider the petitioner’s claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection, taking into account new evidence of the petitioner’s HIV diagnosis.

Don’t commit fraud with Asylum

(1) An untimely application for asylum may be found frivolous under section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2012). Luciana v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 502 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2007), distinguished. Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010), followed.
(2) The respondent’s asylum application is frivolous because he deliberately made a false statement postdating by more than 2 years his date of entry into this country, which is a material element in determining his eligibility to seek asylum given the general requirement to file the application within 1 year of the date of arrival in the United States.

Ninth Circuit upholds BIA denial

The Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA’s decision refusing to consider the Peruvian petitioner’s adjustment of status application because he entered the United States using a fraudulent Italian passport to gain the benefits of the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), holding as a matter of first impression that a noncitizen who fraudulently enters the United States under the VWP is subject to the VWP’s limitations, including waiving any challenge to deportation other than asylum. The court also held that the BIA did not err in denying the petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), finding that the petitioner failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, and that the harm he suffered was insufficient for CAT protection.

Former Immigration Judges and BIA Members Slam DHS on Immigration Detention System

On October 31, 2016, former Immigration Judges and BIA members sent a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to express concern and disappointment regarding the dramatic increase in the numbers of men, women, and children detained by ICE, stating, “On the basis of our experiences as immigration jurists, we know this expansion comes at the expense of basic rights and due process.”

BIA Says Endangering the Welfare of a Child in New York Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in violation of §260.10(1) of the New York Penal Law, which requires knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child, is categorically a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i).

Court Finds Receipt of Embezzled Property Is Not Categorically an Aggravated Felony

The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in concluding that the petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a)(3), finding that a conviction for receipt of embezzled property under 18 USC §659 is not an aggravated felony under the categorical approach

%d bloggers like this: