• 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 Clarifies Standard for Determining When a Misrepresentation Is “Material” Under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i)

In a case before the BIA on remand from the Ninth Circuit for further clarification of portions of the agency’s April 2011 decision in Matter of D-R-, the BIA held in a precedent decision issued today that a misrepresentation is material under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) when it tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to a non citizen’s admissibility and that would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to eligibility for a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States. The BIA further held that in determining whether a noncitizen assisted or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killing, an adjudicator should consider (1) the nexus between the noncitizen’s role, acts, or inaction and the extrajudicial killing and (2) scienter, meaning his or her prior or contemporaneous knowledge of the killing.

No more 30/60 day rule

FAM regulations have withdrawn the 30/60 day rule and now issued the new 90 day rule. This could have serious impact on persons whom wanted to marry and or a presumption of fraud or misrepresentation.

Court Finds Nicaraguan Petitioner Did Not Make a Misrepresentation on His Adjustment Application

The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review, finding that because the petitioner had not been confined in a prison but rather had been detained in a rebel-controlled trailer in the jungle, he did not willfully make a material misrepresentation on his application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident when he answered “no” to Question 17 on his application, and thus he was not removable under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(ii).
%d bloggers like this: