• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Scott A. Wilkinson, Associate
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Philip Levin & Associates

Immigration Law

800-974-2691       
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Scott A. Wilkinson, Associate
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

BIA Holds That The Reopening Of Proceedings To Terminate A Grant Of Asylum Is Warranted If DHS Has Demonstrated That Evidence Of Fraud In The Original Proceeding Was Not Previously Available And Is Material Because, If Known, It Would Likely Have Opened Up Lines Of Inquiry That Could Call An Applicant’s Eligibility For Asylum Into Doubt.

January 3, 2020 Philip Levin

On November 8, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) sustained a DHS appeal, reopened removal proceedings and remanded the record to the Immigration Judge (IJ) so that the government could attempt to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s asylum application was fraudulent. The IJ had granted asylum to Respondent in 2013 and DHS had waived appeal. But the Department filed a motion to reopen, seeking termination of the asylum grant based on fraud, in 2017. The IJ denied the motion almost 4 months later and DHS appealed to the BIA. In support of its motion, DHS had submitted evidence that the attorney who had prepared Respondent’s asylum application had been convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud in 2014, based on “overt acts she committed between 2010 and 2012.” On appeal, the Department claimed that the IJ erred by finding that the attorney’s conviction and related information from the investigation did not amount to new or previously unavailable evidence and that the evidence submitted was insufficient to support reopening.

The issue on appeal, stated the Board, revolved around the “regulatory framework” that sets forth the legal standard governing the reopening of proceedings for a hearing on whether to terminate a grant of asylum.  The opinion initially cited to 8 C.F.R. §1208.24, which sets forth the procedure for DHS to follow when it seeks to terminate a grant of asylum by the IJ or BIA, i.e., the requirement to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, one or more of the grounds set forth in that section. These include that there was fraud in the application, such that a respondent “was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.” The Board also noted that, because the basis for the motion was fraud in the original proceeding, the time and number limitation did not apply, per 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(1). However, such a motion will not be granted – per §1003.23 – unless the IJ is satisfied that the evidence sought to be offered is material, was not previously available and could not have been discovered or presented at the prior hearing.

The BIA first restated the rule that information is “material” when it has a natural tendency to affect the official decision of the adjudication. Thus, held the Board, reopening to terminate an asylum grant is warranted if the Department “can demonstrate that there is evidence of fraud in the original proceeding that was not previously available and is material because, if known, it would likely have opened up lines of inquiry” that could call the applicant’s asylum eligibility into doubt.

In support of its motion, DHS submitted proof that Respondent’s lawyer had been convicted of immigration fraud a year after the IJ granted asylum; this evidence included conviction records and a sentencing memo “explaining that the vast majority of the cases the attorney worked on involved fraud and had fact patterns similar to” those in Respondent’s case. As such, the Board expressly disagreed with the IJ’s conclusion that the evidence was not new or previously unavailable because the lawyer was indicted before the asylum grant. The BIA thus held that the attorney’s conviction record and the sentencing memo’s information related to her fraudulent acts were, in fact, not previously available and could not have been discovered or presented at the prior hearing, citing to 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(3). Similarly, the opinion stated that evidence the attorney had prepared Respondent’s asylum application during the same period she “worked on numerous similar applications that were the basis for her conviction” is material, as is evidence that her associates testified as to the nature and extent of her fraud. Had they been known at the time, concluded the BIA, these facts “would have opened up other lines of inquiry for the DHS to pursue” relevant to the bona fides of Respondent’s application and would have called into question her eligibility for asylum.

The Board, therefore, held that reopening to terminate the grant of asylum was warranted and that, in reopened proceedings, DHS carries the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s asylum application was fraudulent, that she was not eligible for asylum when it was granted, and that she was not eligible on the true facts. The record was remanded to the IJ for further proceedings and for entry of a new decision. Matter of X-Q-L-, 27 I&N Dec. 704 (BIA 2019).

Filed Under: BIA, Blog Tagged With: Asylum, Fraud

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Blog Posts

  • BIA HOLDS THAT, WHERE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT A BENEFICIARY’S PRIOR MARRIAGE WAS FRAUDULENT AND ENTERED INTO FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING IMMIGRATION LAWS, A SUBSEQUENT VISA PETITION FILED ON THE BENEFICIARY’S BEHALF IS PROPERLY DENIED UNDER INA §204(c), EVEN IF THE FIRST VISA PETITION WAS DENIED MERELY BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A BONA FIDE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP.
  • BIA HOLDS THAT, WHERE A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CHARGED AS A GROUND OF REMOVABILITY OR WAS KNOWN TO THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AT THE TIME CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL WAS GRANTED UNDER INA §240A(a), THAT CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS THE SOLE FACTUAL PREDICATE FOR A CHARGE OF REMOVABILITY IN SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
  • BIA Holds That, In Assessing Whether To Admit The Testimony Of A Witness As An Expert, An Immigration Judge Should Consider Whether It Is Sufficiently Relevant And Reliable For The Expert To Offer An Informed Opinion, And If It Is Admitted, The Immigration Judge Should Then Consider How Much Weight The Testimony Should Receive. In Considering How Much Weight To Give An Expert’s Testimony, The Immigration Judge Should Assess How Probative And Persuasive The Testimony Is Regarding Key Issues In Dispute For Which The Testimony Is Being Offered.
  • Attorney General Holds That, In Conducting Its Review Of An Asylum Claim, The BIA Must Examine De Novo Whether The Facts Found By The Immigration Judge Satisfy All Of The Statutory Elements Of Asylum As A Matter Of Law. When Reviewing A Grant Of Asylum, The BIA Should Not Accept The Parties’ Stipulations To, Or Failures To Address, Any Of The Particular Elements Of Asylum Including, Where Necessary, The Elements Of A Particular Social Group. Instead, Unless It Affirms Without Opinion Under 8 C.F.R.§1003.1(e)(4)(i), The Board Should Meaningfully Review Each Element Of An Asylum Claim Before Affirming Such A Grant, Or Before Independently Ordering A Grant Of Asylum. Even If An Applicant Is A Member Of A Cognizable Particular Social Group And Has Suffered Persecution, An Asylum Claim Should Be Denied If The Harm Inflicted Or Threatened By The Persecutor Is Not “On Account Of” The Respondent’s Membership In That Group. That Requirement Is Especially Important To Scrutinize Where The Asserted Particular Social Group Encompasses Many Millions Of Persons In A Particular Society. One’s Membership In A Particular Social Group Cannot Be “Incidental, Tangential, Or Subordinate To The Prosecutor’s Mention…[F]or Why The Persecutor [ ] Sought To Inflict Harm.” Accordingly, Persecution That Results From Personal Animus Or Retribution Generally Does Not Support Eligibility For Asylum.
  • BIA Holds That, After An Immigration Judge Has Set A Firm Deadline For Filing An Application For Relief, A Respondent’s Opportunity To File The Application May Be Deemed Waived Prior To A Scheduled Hearing, If The Deadline Passes Without Submission Of The Application And No Good Cause For Noncompliance Has Been Shown. Respondent Failed To Meet His Burden Of Establishing That He Was Deprived Of A Full And Fair Hearing Where He Has Not Shown That Conducting The Hearing By Video Conference Interfered With His Communication With The Immigration Judge Or Otherwise Prejudiced Him As A Result Of Technical Problems With The Video Equipment.

Practice Areas

  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • Employment Visas
  • H-1B Visas
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Santa Barbara Office
3463 State Street
Suite 516
Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071

©2021 Philip Levin & Associates, Prof. Corp. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Employment Visas
  • Family Visas
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. PL&A will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

PL&A will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. PL&A will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on PL&A to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. PL&A will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.