The law offices of Brian D. Lerner has another win: Perm granted for supervisor of mechanics.
Filed under: PERM | Tagged: Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, PERM, PERM and iCERT systems are currently down, PERM Labor Certification | Leave a comment »
1) A determination that an alien has filed a frivolous application for asylum, pursuant to section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6)(2006), can be made in the absence of a final decision on the merits of the asylum application. (2) Withdrawal of an alien âs asylum application after the required warnings and safeguards have been provided does not preclude a finding that the application is frivolous.
Filed under: asylum | Tagged: asylum, Brian D. Lerner, Frivolous Application for Asylum, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | Leave a comment »
An alien is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as one who was inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status pursuant to section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(2006), where an appropriate immigration official knows or has reason to believe that the alien is a trafficker in controlled substances at the time of admission to the United States. Matter of Rocha, 20 I&N Dec. 944 (BIA 1995).
Crimes that make you deportable
Apply for cancellation of removal
Filed under: Removable Offenses | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, controlled substance, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Removable Offenses | Leave a comment »
An alien’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude does not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2006), if his crime is punishable by imprisonment for a period of less than a year and qualifies for the petty offense exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006). Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010).
Can I be deported for this crime?
Filed under: Crimes of Moral Turpitude | Tagged: alien's conviction, Brian D. Lerner, crime involving moral turpitude, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | Leave a comment »
<< (1) An alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed has been convicted of an offense “described under†section 237(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(2006), and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2006), regardless of the alien’s eligibility for the petty offense exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006). Matter of Almanza, 24 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2009), clarified. Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008); Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2007); and Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I&N Dec. 590 (BIA 2003), explained. (2) In determining which offenses are “described under†sections 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), and 237(a)(3) of the Act for purposes of section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, only language specifically pertaining to the criminal offense, such as the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed, should be considered. (3) The respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for welfare fraud in violation of section 10980(c)(2) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code rendered her ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, because it was for a crime involving moral turpitude for which she could have been sentenced to a year in county jail and was therefore for an offense “described under†section 237(a)(2) of the Act.
Filed under: Cancellation of Removal, conviction, Crimes of Moral Turpitude, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, Cancellation of Removal, crime involving moral turpitude, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | Leave a comment »
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 who will preside in…
Immigration judges are proficient
Filed under: Immigration Judges | Tagged: 23 new Immigration Judges, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Judge, Immigration Judges, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Ninth Circuit decisions and those of other circuits provided petitioner, who claimed that ineffective assistance of counsel occurred after a final order of removal had been entered, with fair notice and the ability to anticipate that the Board of Immigration Appeals might have jurisdiction over his claim. District court did not err in dismissing habeas corpus petition for failure to satisfy prudential requirement that petitioner exhaust administrative remedies. Singh v. Napolitano – filed August 23, 2010
Filed under: BIA | Tagged: BIA, bia board of immigration appeals, BIA Pro Bono Project, board immigration appeals, board of immigration appeal, board of immigration appeals, board of labor certification appeals, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
The “personal use exception” of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which exempts from removability those convicted of only a “single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana,” does not apply to aliens who have more than one drug conviction. Petitioner was ineligible where his conviction for possession of concentrated cannabis was not his only controlled substance offense. Rodriguez v. Holder – filed August 23, 2010
Filed under: alien's conviction, controlled substance, Drug Trafficker, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, USCIS | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, controlled substance, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Personal use exception | Leave a comment »
The “personal use exception” of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which exempts from removability those convicted of only a “single offense involving possession for one’s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana,” does not apply to aliens who have more than one drug conviction. Petitioner was ineligible where his conviction for possession of concentrated cannabis was not his only controlled substance offense. Rodriguez v. Holder – filed August 23, 2010
Filed under: alien's conviction | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, controlled substance, conviction, convictions, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Personal use exception | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 