• 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

Court Says NTA That Is Defective Under Pereira Cannot Be Cured by a Subsequent Notice of Hearing

Concluding that Popa v. Holder had been effectively overruled, the Ninth Circuit heldthat a Notice to Appear (NTA) that is defective under Pereira v. Sessions cannot be cured by a subsequent Notice of Hearing, and therefore does not terminate the residence period required for cancellation of removal. The court thus concluded that, because the petitioner had never received a valid NTA, his residency continued beyond his receipt of the NTA in 2008, and accordingly, he was eligible for cancellation of removal.

Court Finds DHS’s Failure to Include Date and Time in NTA Was Not a Jurisdictional Flaw

The Seventh Circuit held that DHS’s failure to include the time and date of the petitioner’s hearing in the Notice to Appear (NTA) was a failure to follow a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional flaw, and that the petitioner did not timely object to DHS’s misstep.

BIA Finds that a Subsequent Notice of Hearing “Perfects” a Deficient NTA and Triggers “Stop-Time” Rule

In a split en banc decision, the BIA held that where a notice to appear does not specify the time and place of an individual’s initial removal hearing, the subsequent service of a notice of hearing containing that information “perfects” the deficient notice to appear and triggers the “stop-time” rule. The BIA thus remanded to the immigration judge to consider whether the individuals have met their burden to demonstrate 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States measured backward from service of the notices of hearing.

Court Denies Petition for Review, Citing Bermudez-Cota

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA’s denial of relief from removal after the petitioner argued that in light of Pereira v. Sessions, a Notice to Appear (NTA) lacking the time and date of the hearing was insufficient to vest jurisdiction with the immigration court. Citing Matter of Bermudez-Cota, the court held that even when an NTA doesn’t specify the time and date of an individual’s initial removal hearing, as long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the individual in a timely manner, the immigration court has jurisdiction over the individual’s removal proceedings.

Court Grants Review of BIA Denial of Cancellation, Holds Findings Were Not Supported by Record and BIA Failed to Apply Appropriate Standard of Review

he Sixth Circuit determined the BIA erred in finding new evidence was previously available and that the BIA failed to consider hardship ground raised in the Motion to Reopen, instead offering a cursory analysis that didn’t allow for meaningful review. The court remanded the case to properly apply the law. The court also addressed petitioner’s argument that no jurisdiction was vested in the immigration judge, BIA, or court because the Notice to Appear failed to state the time and place of the hearing, holding that jurisdiction was vested and distinguishing the stop-time rule in Pereira.

A Visa Program That Protected Domestic Violence Victims Is Now Putting Them at Risk of Deportation

USCIS’s new NTA policy and new restrictions on when immigration judges can issue continuances have made applying for a U visa a much riskier endeavor for undocumented crime victims, leading immigration attorneys to discourage them from applying in certain circumstances. Around 75% of those granted U visas are sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking victims

USCIS to Expand Implementation of New Policy Memorandum on NTAs

USCIS announced it is continuing to implement its June 28, 2018, policy memo on issuance of Notices to Appear (NTAs). Starting November 19, 2018, USCIS may issue NTAs based on denials of Forms I-914, I-914A, I-918, I-918A, I-360, I-929, and I-730, as well as I-485 when filed with these underlying form types.

%d bloggers like this: