• 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 Holds BIA’s Interpretation of Physical Presence Requirement for NACARA Cancellation to Be Reasonable

The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA’s interpretation of the 10-year physical presence requirement for NACARA cancellation of removal for applicants inadmissible on certain criminal grounds as running from the most recent disqualifying conviction was reasonable.1:39 AM

Court Finds BIA Erred in Requiring Asylum Petitioner to Prove Past Persecution and in Recharacterizing Her Social Group

The Fifth Circuit held that the BIA erred both in requiring the asylum petitioner to prove past persecution to establish a claim based on a well-founded fear of future persecution and in recharacterizing the petitioner’s claimed social group.

BIA Finds Wisconsin Prostitution Statute Is Categorically an Aggravated Felony

The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and reinstated removal proceedings, after finding that INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) encompassed offenses related to the operation of a business that involves engaging in, or agreeing to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value.

Jeff Sessions Is Exerting Unprecedented Control Over Immigration Courts — By Ruling on Cases Himself

On three BIA decisions that the Attorney General has referred to himself for review, as well as a proposal in DOJ’s spring 2018 regulatory agenda that could widen the Attorney General’s power over the immigration court system

BIA rules that Pickering is a NATIONWIDE case dealing with Vacated Convictions

The BIA sustained the respondent’s appeal and remanded the case to the immigration judge for further proceedings, stating that its holding in Matter of Pickering, regarding the validity of vacated convictions for immigration purposes, is reaffirmed, and the decision is modified to give it nationwide application.

BIA Says DHS Is Not Precluded by Res Judicata from Initiating Separate Proceedings

Declining to follow the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Bravo-Pedroza v. Gonzales, the BIA held that DHS is not precluded by res judicata from initiating a separate proceeding to remove a foreign national as one convicted of an aggravated felony burglary offense under INA §101(a)(43)(G), based on the same conviction that supported a crime of violence aggravated felony charge under §101(a)(43)(F) in the prior proceeding.

Court Finds BIA Abused Its Discretion in Mental Competency Evaluation

In Calderon-Rodriguez v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, finding that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the immigration judge’s evaluation of the respondent’s mental competency by failing to recognize that the medical record relied upon was nearly a year old and by departing from the standards set out for competency determinations in Matter of M-A-M-.

Court Says Conviction for Evading Arrest in Texas Is Not Categorically a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

The Fifth Circuit vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded, holding that the petitioner’s conviction for evading arrest under Texas Penal Code §38.04 was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(b)(1).

BIA Remands to Determine If Beneficiary’s Birth Certificate Is Sufficient

In a precedent decision issued on September 20, 2017, the BIA held that where a petitioner seeking to prove a familial relationship submits a birth certificate that was not registered contemporaneously with the birth, an adjudicator must consider the birth certificate, as well as all the other evidence of record and the circumstances of the case, to determine whether the petitioner has submitted sufficient reliable evidence to demonstrate the claimed relationship by a preponderance of the evidence.

Court Finds Petitioner’s Failure to Brief Her Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Constituted Waiver of the Claim

According Chevron deference to the BIA’s decision, the Fifth Circuit held that the BIA did not err in denying the petitioner’s motion to reconsider her motion to reopen and found that the petitioner had waived her ineffective assistance of counsel claim by failing to brief the issue on appeal.