• 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

Immigration Judges cannot be bullies

A case just came down with the following ruling:
Matter of Y-S-L-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2015)

(1) The requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the admission of expert testimony are inapposite to a respondent’s testimony regarding events of which he or she has personal knowledge.

(2) Conduct by an Immigration Judge that can be perceived as bullying or hostile is never appropriate, particularly in cases involving minor respondents, and may result in remand to a different Immigration Judge.

Iranian IJ wins suit

NPR reports that DOJ has agreed to lift an order recusing Los Angeles-based Immigration Judge Ashley Tabaddor from all cases involving Iranian nationals. Last year, Judge Tabaddor sued DOJ, claiming that the order amounted to discrimination and violated her constitutional rights. DOJ also agreed to pay Judge Tabaddor $200,000, and to review its recusal policies.

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.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-court/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/immigration-court-proceedings/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/mentally-incompetent/

https://californiaimmigration.us/removal/deportation-2/

IJ MUST give asylum applicants notice of Biometric appointment

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found that Immigration Judges (IJs) must notify asylum applicants of the biometrics requirements, the deadline for complying with the requirements, and the consequences of noncompliance. The BIA also held that neither IJs nor the BIA has jurisdiction to consider whether asylum-only proceedings were improvidently instituted pursuant to a referral under the Visa Waiver Program.

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

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/adjudication-of-asylum/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/appeal-asylum/

https://californiaimmigration.us/asylum/

Did Immigration Judge forget to let you know your rights?

The Ninth Circuit vacated the defendant’s conviction for illegal reentry, holding that the defendant’s due process rights were violated when the Immigration Judge (IJ) failed to advise the defendant during his 1999 removal proceeding about the availability of potential discretionary relief under INA §212(c). The court remanded for consideration of whether the defendant was prejudiced by the deprivation of his due process rights.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/know-your-rights/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/rights-of-aliens/

https://californiaimmigration.us/a-study-at-columbia-law-school-concerning-human-rights-and-us-immigration-requested-information-from-attorneys/

Immigration Reform possibly coming

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she spoke with House Speaker John Boehner about the Republican immigration principles, and she believes they are a “good faith effort to find common ground” among Republicans and Democrats.

Immigration reform

Constitutionality of immigration reform

Immigration reform news

Immigration reform update gives hope to millions even with criminal history

CA2 Finds IJs Can Decline to Make Frivolousness Finding

The court held that an IJ can find that a noncitizen filed a frivolous asylum application even when the noncitizen has withdrawn her application, but also held that an IJ retains discretion to decline to make a “frivolousness finding.”

https://www.uscis.gov/green-card

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/getting-the-green-card-through-marriage/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/extgension-of-green-card/

https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/biden-green-card-ban-ban-visa-lottery-diverity-lottery/

Immigration judge

Immigration judges adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence where there was testimony about an elaborate scheme, involving the publisher of a newspaper associated with petitioner’s brother-in-law’s political party, to print a noncirculating issue and plant a copy in petitioner’s country’s national press archives. Adverse credibility finding did not, by itself, support a sua sponte finding that the petitioner filed a frivolous petition where the possibility of such a finding was not raised by the government or by the immigration judge. Khadka v. Holder – filed August 18, 2010

Immigration judges 

U.S district judge

Immigration judges who will preside in…

Immigration judges are proficient 

The misdemeanor offense of assault and battery against a family or household member

The misdemeanor offense of assault and battery against a family or household member in violation of section 18.2-57.2(A) of the Virginia Code Annotated is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006) and therefore not categorically a crime
of domestic violence within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2006).

Best immigration attorney

Immigration attorney

Find a good immigration lawyer

The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner

Judicial Review

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 included restrictions on federal judicial review of deportation, exclusion and removal cases. Former INA § 106, passed in 1961 by the United States Congress, had provided the basis for judicial review of immigration matters until its elimination by IIRIRA which replaced it with INA § 242, [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252].
After the passage of IIRIRA, different procedures were created for judicial review of removal orders, including exclusion or deportation orders, and for immigration decisions generally. Decisions regarding judicial review of removal orders are now subject to INA § 242 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252]. Review of immigration decisions outside of removal proceedings are governed by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331 and the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act and occur in the District Courts.
Judicial review of immigration decisions can be divided into three categories depending on the date of commencement of proceedings or issuance of a final order. If a person had a final order of deportation or exclusion entered before October 30, 1996, judicial review was governed by former INA § 106. Deportation or exclusion cases which were commenced on or before October 30, 1996—but where no final deportation or exclusion order had yet been issued—are subject to the transition rules under IIRIRA. Judicial review of post-IIRIRA removal proceedings initiated on or after April 1, 1997 are governed by INA § 242 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252] which provide limited judicial review of many immigration matters.Except as provided in INA § 242(b) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)] (requirements for review of removal orders), judicial review of a final order of removal is governed by Chapter 158 of Title 28 of the United States Code, except that courts may not order taking of additional evidence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2347(c). However, there are matters not subject to judicial review as outlined in INA § 242(a)(2) [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)]. Generally, judicial review of an order of removal lies with the circuit courts of appeals.
Under several provisions contained in IIRIRA, the United States Congress sought to simplify and expedite the removal of aliens, including either eliminating or severely limiting judicial review of immigration decisions as follows:

(1) elimination or limitation of judicial review under INA § 242 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1252]: this provision contains a variety of court stripping or limiting provisions;
(2) elimination of review regarding discretionary decisions relating to detention, or release, including the grant, revocation or denial of bond or parole;
(3) elimination of review of decisions of the Attorney General or his or her successor regarding voluntary departure;
(4) elimination of challenges against the United States or its agencies or officers under INA § 279 [8 U.S.C.A. § 1329];
(5) restriction on judicial review of certain legalization claims other than in the context of review of a final order of deportation or removal unless the person filed within the original deadline or was refused (“front-desked”) by the legacy INS at the time and
(6) restriction on review of the denial of the right to seek asylum because the applicant;

(a) could seek protection in a safe third country;
(b) was previously denied asylum;
(c) did not file the application within one year of entry; or
(d) is deemed to be a terrorist.
Despite the restrictions created by IIRIRA precluding judicial review of a broad range of immigration related matters, federal courts still retain jurisdiction to review jurisdictional facts and determine the proper scope, if any, of its own jurisdiction.
Generally, petitioners must exhaust all administrative remedies prior to requesting review of a final order. Additionally, petitioners must comply with general Article III requirements relating to subject matter jurisdiction, standing, ripeness, mootness and the political question doctrine. These and the other bars to judicial review noted above must be addressed prior to reaching the merits of a case.
Find a good Immigration attorney