• Hours & Info

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

  • Past Blog Posts

BIA Says Asylum Grantee Who Adjusts to LPR Status Under INA §209(b) Terminates His or Her Asylee Status

Clarifying Matter of C-J-H-, the BIA held that a noncitizen who adjusts status under INA §209(b) changes his or her status from that of a noncitizen granted asylum to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence, thereby terminating his or her asylee status. The BIA further held that the restrictions on removal in INA §208(c)(1)(A) do not apply to a noncitizen granted asylum whose status is adjusted to that of a noncitizen lawfully admitted for permanent residence pursuant to INA §209(b).

BIA Says “Specified Offense Against a Minor” Can Involve Undercover Officer Posing as a Minor

The BIA dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, holding that an offense may be a “specified offense against a minor” within the meaning of section 111(7) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, even if it involved an undercover police officer posing as a minor, rather than an actual minor. Thus, the BIA found that the petitioner, who was convicted of computer-aided solicitation of a minor in Louisiana after he communicated via the internet with an individual who he believed was a 14-year-old girl but was actually an undercover police officer, was barred from obtaining an approved visa petition by the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act.

What to do if you lose at the Board of Immigration Appeals

 

Question: I am so sad. I lost at the Immigration Court and then I lost at the Board of Immigration Appeals. Is there anywhere else to go and anything else I can do to try to stay here in the U.S.?

 

Answer: Yes. You are eligible to file a Petition for Review to the Circuit Court of Appeals.  Petitions for review must be filed and received by the court no later than 30 days after
the date of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This deadline is jurisdictiona.  The 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review is not extended either by filing a motion to reopen or reconsider or by the grant or extension of voluntary departure. Separate petitions for review must be filed for each BIA decision, including issues arising from the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider.


ICE can deport an individual before the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review
Filing a petition for review does not stay the individual’s removal from the country; Instead, a separate request for a stay must be filed with the court. Filing a petition for review terminates the voluntary departure order, with one exception.  A petition for review may be litigated even if the individual has been removed. However, you probably want to stay here, so try to get the Motion to Stay promptly filed.

 

Question: That’s good to hear. However, what exactly is a ‘petition for review’?

 

Answer: A petition for review is the document filed by, or on behalf of, an individual seeking review of an agency decision in a circuit court of appeals. In the immigration context, a petition for review is filed to obtain federal court review of a removal, deportation or exclusion decision issued by the BIA. In addition, a petition for review may be filed to obtain review of a removal order issued by ICE under a few very limited specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

 

Question: So what can you challenge in the Petition for Review?

 

Answer: A challenge to a BIA or ICE decision may involve legal, constitutional, factual, and/or
discretionary claims. In general, (1) legal claims assert that BIA/ICE erroneously applied or
interpreted the law (e.g., the INA or the regulations); (2) constitutional challenges assert that
BIA/ICE violated a constitutional right (e.g., due process or equal protection); (3) factual claims
assert that certain findings of fact made by BIA/ICE were erroneous; and (4) discretionary claims assert BIA/ICE abused its discretion by the manner in which it reached its conclusion.

 

Keep in mind that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for review of the underlying decision is not extended by the filing of a motion to reopen or reconsider, nor is it extended by the grant or extension of voluntary departure. To obtain review of issues arising from a BIA decision and issues arising from the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, separate petitions for review of each BIA decision must be filed.

 

It is quite complex to properly do a Petition for Review, so be sure that you get a qualified immigration attorney to get it filed for you.

BIA Says Endangering the Welfare of a Child in New York Is Categorically a Crime of Child Abuse

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA held that the crime of endangering the welfare of a child in violation of §260.10(1) of the New York Penal Law, which requires knowingly acting in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of a child, is categorically a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i).

Court Finds Receipt of Embezzled Property Is Not Categorically an Aggravated Felony

The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in concluding that the petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA §240A(a)(3), finding that a conviction for receipt of embezzled property under 18 USC §659 is not an aggravated felony under the categorical approach

Court Upholds Denial of Adjustment Application Where Marriage Was Not Deemed Bona Fide

The Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review, finding that substantial evidence supported the IJ’s finding that the petitioner committed marriage fraud, and thus, that he was ineligible for adjustment of status under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i). The court also found that the IJ did not commit any legal or constitutional error in exercising discretion to deny adjustment of status.

Mentally incompetent in Immigration Court?

In a precedent decision issued today, the BIA found that neither the government nor the respondent bears a formal burden of proof in immigration proceedings to establish whether or not the respondent is mentally competent, but where indicia of incompetency are identified, the Immigration Judge (IJ) should determine if a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the respondent is competent. Further, the BIA held that an IJ’s finding of competency is a finding of fact that the BIA can review to determine if it is clearly erroneous.

%d bloggers like this: