• 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 Rules That Absence of a Checked Alien Classification Box Does Not Render an NTA Fatally Deficient

The BIA ruled that the absence of a checked alien classification box on a Notice to Appear (NTA) does not, by itself, render an NTA fatally deficient; preclude an immigration judge from exercising jurisdiction over removal proceedings; or terminate proceedings under the Migrant Protection Protocols.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).

on this BIA case:

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I&N Dec. 808 (BIA 2020).
Headnotes:
(1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.
(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.
Read full decision at https:/

I don’t see how that changes anything

(1) The exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal is based on a cumulative consideration of all hardship factors, but to the extent that a claim is based on the health of a qualifying relative, an applicant needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the applicant to the country of removal, that adequate medical care for the claimed condition is not reasonably available in that country.
(2) The Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent did not establish eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate that his qualifying relatives will experience hardship, including medical, economic, and emotional hardship, that rises to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual.

BIA Rules on Firm Resettlement Bar to Asylum

The BIA ruled that for determining the firm resettlement bar to asylum, a viable and available offer to apply for permanent residence in a country of refuge is not negated by an individual’s unwillingness to satisfy the terms of acceptance.

BIA Dismisses Appeal and Issues Decision on “Realistic Probability”

The BIA found that where an individual has been convicted of violating a state drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the federal controlled substances schedules, the individual must establish a realistic probability that the state would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction.

Court Remands for BIA to Explain Why It Did Not Apply Sanchez-Sosa Factors to Remand Request

The Eighth Circuit remanded for the BIA to explain why it denied the petitioner’s motion to reopen and reconsider after the petitioner had provided proof of his filing of a U visa application, when Matter of Sanchez-Sosa suggests that a completed application weighs in favor of pausing the removal process to await adjudication of the U visa.

Court Upholds BIA Denial to Certify Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Because It Is Not Subject to Judicial Review

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit held ineffective assistance certifications are committed to agency discretion by the plain language of 8 CFR §1003.1(c), which contains no standard or meaningful guidance sufficient for judicial review.

Court Grants Review of BIA Denial of Cancellation, Holds Findings Were Not Supported by Record and BIA Failed to Apply Appropriate Standard of Review

he Sixth Circuit determined the BIA erred in finding new evidence was previously available and that the BIA failed to consider hardship ground raised in the Motion to Reopen, instead offering a cursory analysis that didn’t allow for meaningful review. The court remanded the case to properly apply the law. The court also addressed petitioner’s argument that no jurisdiction was vested in the immigration judge, BIA, or court because the Notice to Appear failed to state the time and place of the hearing, holding that jurisdiction was vested and distinguishing the stop-time rule in Pereira.
%d bloggers like this: