• Hours & Info

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

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling of his untimely motion to reopen, because his lawyer’s advice to pursue a form of immigration relief for which the petitioner was statutorily ineligible constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The court remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) with instructions to grant the petitioner’s motion to reopen

BIA rules on adverse credibility findings based on fraudulent documents

Board of immigration appeals

Motion to reopen with the BIA

BIA issues two crime related decisions

Matter of D-M-C-P, 26 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2015)

(1) Neither an Immigration Judge nor the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.

(2) It is improper to deem an application for relief abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the biometrics filing requirement where the record does not reflect that the applicant received notification advisories concerning that requirement, was given a deadline for submitting the biometrics, and was advised of the consequences of his or her failure to comply.

BIA rules on expert testimony and factual findings

BIA pro bono project

Board of immigration appeals

BIA issues two crime related decisions

Seems the Immigration Judge might have been predisposed to rule against applicant

The First Circuit vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying the petitioner’s asylum claim and remanded for reconsideration of the credibility determination, finding that purported omissions and discrepancies upon which the Immigration Judge based an adverse credibility determination were consistently present in the record.

Physical Presence continues to accrue if NTA not served

The BIA sustained the respondent’s appeal and remanded, holding that a notice to appear (NTA) that was served but never resulted in removal proceedings does not have “stop-time” effect for purposes of establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Adopted after 16? You may still qualify for Immigration Benefits

n a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the beneficiary of a visa petition who was adopted pursuant to a state court order that was entered when the beneficiary was more than 16 years old, but with an effective date prior to his or her 16th birthday, may qualify as an adopted child under INA §101(b)(1)(E)(i), so long as the adoption petition was filed before the beneficiary’s 16th birthday, and the state in which the adoption was entered expressly permits an adoption decree to be dated retroactively.

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that the beneficiary of a visa petition who was adopted pursuant to a state court order that was entered when the beneficiary was more than 16 years old, but with an effective date prior to his or her 16th birthday, may qualify as an adopted child under INA §101(b)(1)(E)(i), so long as the adoption petition was filed before the beneficiary’s 16th birthday, and the state in which the adoption was entered expressly permits an adoption decree to be dated retroactively.

Immigration benefits background check systems

Immigration benefits

IBBCS

The US will extend immigration benefits 

Size of Board of Immigration Appeals is getting bigger

EOIR issued an interim rule with a request for comments amending the DOJ regulations relating to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) by adding two Board member positions, expanding the BIA to 17 members. This rule is effective today. Comments must be submitted by August 3, 2015.

EOIR issued an interim rule with a request for comments amending the DOJ regulations relating to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) by adding two Board member positions, expanding the BIA to 17 members. This rule is effective today. Comments must be submitted by August 3, 2015.

BIA

Board of immigration appeals

Appeal to BIA

BIA Deference given to particulary serious crime

Another win for the Law Offices of Brian Lerner winning at 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Client’s case was denied by the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals and prior to retaining our office.  Once retained, we filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit and were able to have her case administratively closed so that she could apply for her green card based on her marriage to a US citizen.

 

In a precedent decision issued yesterday, the BIA held that a respondent who has voted in an election involving candidates for federal office in violation of 18 USC §611(a) is removable under section 237(a)(6)(A) of the INA, regardless of whether the respondent knew that he or she was committing an unlawful act by voting. The BIA reasoned that because the respondent, an LPR who had disclosed during a naturalization interview that she had voted in an election in 2006 that included a local school board race, had intentionally voted in an election involving candidates for federal office, the general intent requirement of §611(a) was satisfied.

BIA

Board of immigration appeals

Appeal to BIA

BIA deference given to particulary serious crime