• 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

BIA Distinguishes Pereira and Dismisses Respondent’s Appeal

The BIA found that a notice to appear that doesn’t specify the time and place of an individual’s initial removal hearing vests an immigration judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings and meets the requirements of INA §239(a), so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the individual.

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´s decision

The Second Circuit held that the BIA’s decision declining to certify the petitioner’s untimely appeal of his removal order was a discretionary determination and, accordingly, was not subject to judicial review.

Board of immigration appeals

The IJ and BIA

BIA Pro Bono project

The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner

 

 

Make sure to file BIA Appeal on Time

The Second Circuit held that the BIA’s decision declining to certify the petitioner’s untimely appeal of his removal order was a discretionary determination and, accordingly, was not subject to judicial review.

Board of Immigration Appeals decision

Where petitioners sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying their motion to reopen their removal proceedings, and some of the evidence they submitted was cumulative of evidence they had submitted during their hearing, while some was not, Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to the extent that it pertained to the noncumulative evidence, but lacked jurisdiction to review the decision as it pertained to the cumulative evidence, except to the extent that the petitioners raised a question of law regarding the treatment of that evidence. BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners’ daughter’s new medical condition, which allegedly required reconstructive surgery for a disfigurement on her external ear, did not warrant reopening, but BIA erred where it failed to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners’ supplemental brief and an attached exhibit relating to a new, allegedly precancerous medical condition allegedly incurred by one petitioner’s mother.

BIA 

Board of immigration appeals

BIA meaning

Lawyer to appeal to the BIA

Board of Immigration Appeals might have jurisdiction over his claim

Ninth Circuit decisions and those of other circuits provided petitioner, who claimed that ineffective assistance of counsel occurred after a final order of removal had been entered, with fair notice and the ability to anticipate that the Board of Immigration Appeals might have jurisdiction over his claim. District court did not err in dismissing habeas corpus petition for failure to satisfy prudential requirement that petitioner exhaust administrative remedies. Singh v. Napolitano – filed August 23, 2010

BIA Just a stepping stone 

BIA appealing 

The BIA ruling 

BIA decisions