• 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

Case involving separate claims of a couple from Egypt

In a case involving separate claims of a couple from Egypt, the court upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as to the husband, but remanded the wife’s claim where the BIA failed to address the IJ’s findings as to her testimony. (Rizk v. Holder, 1/3/11)

BIA

denial of bia

immigration attorney

BIA Issues Two Crime Related Decisions

Source of the children’s support in the event of Petitioner’s deportation

The court remanded where the IJ and BIA assumed that the father of Petitioner’s children would remain a source of the children’s support in the event of Petitioner’s deportation, and ignored the possibility of the father’s deportation. (Champion v. Holder, 11/22/10)

USC Father

BIA

bia board of immigration appeals

Victory for Due Process of Aliens

EOIR announces on the new six Immigration Judges

EOIR announcement on the appointment of six new immigration judges who will preside in immigration courts in Eloy, AZ, Lumpkin, GA, Memphis, TN, and Port Isabel and San Antonio, TX.

BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose

As a matter of first impression, the court held that the IJ’s jurisdiction on remand from the BIA is limited only when the BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose. (Fernandes v. Holder, 8/20/10)

IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings resulted in no final order of removal

The court distinguished Lolong v. Gonzales and found that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review because the IJ’s decision to terminate proceedings resulted in no final order of removal. (Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 9/2/10)

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 

Immigration Judge’s jurisdiction on remand from BIA

An immigration judge’s jurisdiction on remand from the Board of Immigration Appeals is limited only when the BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose. An articulated purpose for the remand, without any express limit on scope, is not sufficient to limit the remand such that it forecloses consideration of other new claims or motions that the immigration judge deems appropriate or that are presented in accordance with relevant regulations. Immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence where witness testified credibly and consistently that he had prepared and falsified petitioner’s asylum application, as he had done for at least a hundred other clients, and petitioner, to rebut that evidence, relied only on his own testimony, which he eventually admitted was riddled with misrepresentations. Immigration judge’s finding that petitioner filed a frivolous application was supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Fernandes v. Holder – filed August 20, 2010.

BIA 

BIA rules 

Board of immigration appeals 

BIA issues 

Immigration

immigration – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/NgNdC

Immigration issues 

American immigration attorney can help you

Immigration lawyer 

The Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, APC 

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

A new case re: Motions to Reopen

To be timely, petitioner’s motion to reopen had to be filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ initial merits determination, not within 90 days of the denial of his motion to reconsider.
Soria Vega v. Holder – filed July 19, 2010

Motion to reopen

Motion to reopen meaning

MTR and immigration

Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner