San Francisco Immigration Lawyers

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.

November 13, 2020 Philip Levin

On September 24, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer the instant case to him for review of its… CONTINUE

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.

November 13, 2020 Philip Levin

On August 31, 2020, in an opinion by newly-appointed Appellate Immigration Judge Stephanie Gorman, previously an Immigration Judge (IJ) with an extremely high asylum denial rate, the Board of Immigration… CONTINUE

Attorney General Holds That If All Means Of Committing A Crime, Based On The Elements Of Conviction, Amount To One Or More Of The Offenses Listed In INA §101(a)(43), Then A Respondent Who Has Been Convicted Of That Crime Has Necessarily Been Convicted Of An Aggravated Felony Under The Statute. Here, Respondent’s Conviction For Grand Larceny In The Second Degree Under New York Penal Law §155.40(1) Qualifies As An Aggravated Felony Conviction Under The INA. DHS Charged That Respondent Had Been Convicted Of Either Aggravated Felony Theft Per §101(a)(43)(G) Or Aggravated Felony Fraud Per §101(a)(43)(M)(i). Larceny By Acquiring Lost Property Constitutes Aggravated Felony Theft And The Parties Do Not Dispute That The Other Means Of Violating The New York Statute Correspond To Either Aggravated Felony Theft Or Aggravated Felony Fraud.

November 12, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 30, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr, in a case which he had directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer to him in… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That Where One Has Been Personally Served With A Notice To Appear Advising Him Of The Requirement To Notify The Immigration Court Of His Correct Address But Does Not Do So And Is Ordered Removal In Absentia For Failure To Appear At A Hearing, Reopening Of Proceedings To Rescind His Order Of Removal Based On A Lack Of Proper Notice Is Not Warranted, Per INA §240(b)(5)(C)(ii). Respondent’s Failure To Update His Address For Over 18 Years Indicates A Lack Of Due Diligence And May Properly Be Found To Undermine The Veracity Of His Claim That He Has Taken Actions To Maintain His Rights In The Underlying Removal Proceedings.

November 12, 2020 Philip Levin

On August 5, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed Respondent’s appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen and rescind… CONTINUE

BIA Invites Amicus Curiae Briefs Addressing The Situation Where The Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP) Notice And Advisal Sheets Are Not Signed Or Otherwise Acknowledged By Any Respondent Of Record, And The Record Contains No Specific Attestation, From Any Party, That The Respondents Received Specific Advisals Adequate To Allow Them To Appear At The Scheduled Hearing From Their Locations In Contiguous Territory, Whether Notice Of The Hearing Is Adequate To Satisfy Due Process.

November 12, 2020 Philip Levin

On September 4, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) welcomed interested members of the public to file amicus curiae briefs addressing the above-referenced issue, explaining that those… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That Section 13-3407 Of The Arizona Revised Statutes, Which Criminalizes Possession Of A Dangerous Drug, Is Divisible With Regard To The Specific “Dangerous Drug” Involved In A Violation Of That Statute.

October 16, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 23, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in what appears to be an attempt to limit the use of the categorical approach or make it… CONTINUE

Attorney General Holds That, Under DOJ Regulations Implementing The Convention Against Torture (CAT), An Act Constutues “Torture” Only If It Is Inflicted Or Approved By A Public Official Or Other Person “Acting In An Offical Capacity.” 8 C.F.R.§1208.18(a)(1). This Official Capacity Requirement Limits The Scope Of The CAT To Actions Performed “Under Color Of Law.” Matter Of Y-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002). Nothing In Y-L-, Or Any Other Board Precedent, Should Be Construed To Endorse A Distinct, “Rogue Official” Standard. The “Under Color Of Law” Standard Draws No Categorical Distinction Between The Acts Of Low- And High – Level Officials. A Public Official, Regardless Of Rank, Acts “Under Color Of Law” When He “Exercise[s] Power Possessed By Virtue Of…Law And Made Possible Only Because [He Was] Clothed With The Authority Of…Law” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 47 (1988)(Quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).

September 30, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 14, 2020, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer the instant case to him for review of it’s… CONTINUE

BIA Holds That, Per INA §235(b)(2)(C), One Who Is Arriving On Land From A Contiguous Foreign Territory May Be Returned To That Country By DHS Under The Migrant Protection Protocols, Regardless Of Whether He Or She Arrives At Or Between A Designated Port Of Entry.

August 17, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 14, 2020, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) denied a request for oral argument and dismissed the appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ)… CONTINUE

Attorney General Extends Briefing Schedule In A Case Where He Had Referred A Decision Of The BIA To Himself For Review.

August 7, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 8, 2020, Attorney General (AG) William Barr set a new briefing schedule in a matter in which he had previously directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or… CONTINUE

EOIR Director Issues Supplemental Ruling, Holding That An Amicus Curiae Is Not A Party In Recognition And Accreditation Proceedings And Has No Authority To Seek Further Action Following The Conclusion Of An Administrative Review Under 8 C.F.R. §1292.18.

August 7, 2020 Philip Levin

On July 2, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director James R. McHenry (Director) issued a decision supplementing his prior opinion in Matter of Bay Area Legal Services, Inc.,… CONTINUE