• 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 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

USCIS proposed rule to increase fees for immigration applications

USCIS released a proposed rule to increase fees for immigration benefit applications and petitions. DHS proposes to increase USCIS fees by a weighted average of 10 percent.

Applications to USCIS

Legal requirements for signatures on all petitions and applications

USCIS fee 

Our Immigration Law Firm

Repay hospital fees

Repay hospital fees – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/H01Yk

Immigration Attorney

Find a good Immigration Lawyer to help you

American Immigration Attorney

Immigration Law Firm

 

 

 

 

 

How long does it takes to get an immigration court?

How long does it takes to get an immigration court? – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/OsWJO

Immigration Court

Immigration Court proceedings

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

The validity of the Alien’s appproved employment visa

Immigration Judges have authority to determine whether the validity of an alien’s approved employment-based visa petition is preserved under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2006), after the alien’s change in jobs or employers. Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005), overruled.

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/employment-visa/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/employment-visas/

https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/work-employment-visa/

https://californiaimmigration.us/regulations-on-agricultural-employment-visa-h-2a-will-receive-a-final-ruling-of-it%e2%80%99s-amended-regulation/