• 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

Why the BIA’s 212(c) ruling did not stand up to muster at the U.S. Supreme Court

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/

The Supreme Court strikes down the BIA 212(c) ruling of ‘comparable ground of excludability’

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/

What is the legal basis the Supreme Court used to rule why the BIA’s 212(c) ruling was arbitrary

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/

The new Supreme Court case rules that the BIA rule under 212(c) is arbitrary and capricious

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/

BIA Finds NTA Without Hearing Date Triggers “Stop-Time” Rule

The Board found that any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence ends upon service of an NTA on the alien, even if the NTA does not include the date and time of the initial hearing.

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/bia-2/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/bia-3/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/appeal-to-bia/

https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-deference-given-to-particulary-serious-crime/

BIA Says Adjustment under Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Is an Admission

The Board found the respondent was admitted to the U.S. when he adjusted status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and was thus subject to removal under INA § 237(a) following a drug trafficking conviction.

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/bia-2/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/bia/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/wp-admin/term.php?taxonomy=post_tag&tag_ID=363145778&post_type=post&wp_http_referer=%2Fwp-admin%2Fedit-tags.php%3Ftaxonomy%3Dpost_tag%26post_type%3Dpost%26s%3DBIA

https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-deference-given-to-particulary-serious-crime/

CA5 on Requiring Corroborating Evidence from Asylum Applicants

The court held that the BIA reasonably interpreted its own regulations in Matter of S-M-J- when ruling asylum applicants can be required to provide reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence even when their testimony is credible.

Supreme Court Rejects §212(c) Comparable Grounds Rule

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the BIA’s comparable grounds rule, as applied to applications for §212(c) relief in deportation proceedings, is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

BIA Applies Stop-Time Rule Where NTA Did Not Include Hearing Date/Time

The BIA held that the continuous residence/presence of an alien applying for cancellation ends under the stop-time rule upon service of an NTA, even if the NTA does not include the date and time of the initial hearing.

BIA on Burden of Proof and Returning LPRs

The BIA held that to establish that a returning LPR is to be treated as an applicant for admission, the government has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a §101(a)(13)(C) exceptions applies.