• 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

Court rejected Petitioner’s argument

The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the 3-page opinion issued by a single BIA member could only have been appropriately rendered by a 3-member panel, and that 8 CFR §1003.1 clearly allows a single member to issue such an opinion. (Ward v. Holder, 1/21/11)

Court Uphold BIA denial of family planning claim

The court found that the harm inflicted on Petitioner, who was punched repeatedly by family planning officials and detained for two days after his wife was taken away for an abortion, did not rise to the level of persecution. (Liu v. Holder, 1/24/11).

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-2/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/bia-pro-bono-project/

https://californiaimmigration.us/bia-issues-two-crime-related-decisions/

Case involving separate claims of a couple from Egypt

In a case involving separate claims of a couple from Egypt, the court upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as to the husband, but remanded the wife’s claim where the BIA failed to address the IJ’s findings as to her testimony. (Rizk v. Holder, 1/3/11)

BIA

denial of bia

immigration attorney

BIA Issues Two Crime Related Decisions

Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief

The court ordered Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief, finding that BIA erred in its denial on the basis that petitioner could avoid torture by ceasing to exercise her political rights and remanded for consideration of her FGM claim as a separate basis for relief. (Edu v. Holder, 10/26/10)

Convention against Torture

torture

Convention Against Torture

Convention Against Torture Granted

Petitioner to pursue an argument never presented to the BIA

In order for Petitioner to pursue an argument never presented to the BIA, the BIA must (1) identify a claim not presented by the petitioner; (2) exercise its discretion to entertain it; and (3) decide the matter in a full opinion. (Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, 11/5/10)

Asylum agreements

biden border agreement

flores settlement agreement

DHS and Seneca Nation of Indians Announce Agreement to Develop Enhanced Tribal Card

DHS has Sole Authority on Naturalization Application

The BIA’s conclusion that proceedings may only be terminated based on the pendency of a naturalization application where DHS makes an affirmative statement of prima facie eligibility is not inconsistent with 8 CFR §1239.2(f). (Barnes v. Holder, 11/10/10)

DHS has Sole Authority on Naturalization Application

Naturalization

naturalization certificate

New Win for the Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner

Source of the children’s support in the event of Petitioner’s deportation

The court remanded where the IJ and BIA assumed that the father of Petitioner’s children would remain a source of the children’s support in the event of Petitioner’s deportation, and ignored the possibility of the father’s deportation. (Champion v. Holder, 11/22/10)

USC Father

BIA

bia board of immigration appeals

Victory for Due Process of Aliens

Petitioner’s CAT claim and remanded for reconsideration under the “actual knowledge” or “willful blindness” standard

The court found that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in its consideration of Petitioner’s CAT claim and remanded for reconsideration under the “actual knowledge” or “willful blindness” standard. (Hakim v. Holder, 12/13/10)

Petitioner’s CAT claim

CAT

cats

Victory for Due Process of Aliens

BIA on the “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum and withholding of removal applications

BIA held that the “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum applications pursuant to INA §208(b)(1)(B)(i) also applies to applications for withholding of removal under §241(b)(3)(A). Matter of C-T-L, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA 2010).

BIA on conviction for a single crime involving moral turpitude

BIA held that a conviction for a single crime involving moral turpitude that qualifies as a petty offense is not an “offense referred to in section 212(a)(2)” of the INA for purposes of triggering the stop-time rule. Matter of Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 2010).