On September 18, 2018, Attorney General (AG) Jefferson Sessions directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) to refer to him a case, per 8 C.F.R §1003.1(h)(1)(i), so that… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Amendment To California Penal Code §18.5, Which Retroactively Lowered The Maximum Possible Sentence That Could Have Been Imposed For One’s State Offense From 365 To 354 Days, Does Not Affect The Applicability Of INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) To A Past Conviction For A Crime Involving Moral Turpitude “For Which A Sentence Of One Year Or Longer May Be Imposed.”
On October 14, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a respondent (for the 2ndtime) who had been found removable for being present in… CONTINUE
Attorney General Holds That, Per 8 C.F.R. §1003.29, An Immigration Judge May Grant A Continuance of Removal Proceedings Only “For Good Cause Shown,” A Substantive Requirement That Limits The Discretion Of Immigration Judges And Prohibits The Granting Of Continuances For Any Reason Or No Reason At All; It Requires Consideration And Balancing Of Multiple Relevant Factors When A Respondent Requests A Continuance To Pursue Collateral Relief From Another Authority. In Such An Event, The Immigration Judge Must Consider Primarily The Likelihood That The Collateral Relief Will Be Granted And Will Materially Affect The Outcome Of The Removal Proceedings. The Immigration Judge Should Also Consider Relevant Secondary Factors, Which May Include Respondent’s Diligence In Seeking Collateral Relief, DHS’s Position On the Motion For Continuance, Concerns Of Administrative Efficiency, The Length Of The Continuance Requested, The Number of Hearings Held And Continuances Granted Previously, And The Timing Of The Continuance Motion.
On August 16, 2018, Attorney General Jefferson Sessions (AG), in yet another lengthy opinion seeking to alter settled immigration court practice, set limits on Immigration Judges (IJs) in the granting… CONTINUE
Attorney General Declines Review Of Case He Previously Directed BIA To Refer To Him
On October 12, 2018, Attorney General (AG) Jefferson Sessions issued an order noting that he had previously, on September 18, 2018, directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board)… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That A Notice To Appear That Does Not Specify The Time And Place Of A Respondent’s Initial Removal Hearing Vests An Immigration Judge With Jurisdiction Over The Proceedings And Meets The Requirements Of INA §239 (a), So Long As A Notice Of Hearing Specifying This Information Is Later Send To The Respondent, Distinguishing Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018).
On August 30, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed both an appeal and a motion to terminate in a case where the Immigration Judge (IJ) had… CONTINUE
BIA Holds A Conviction Does Not Attain A Sufficient Degree Of Finality For Immigration Purposes Until The Right To Direct Appellate Review On The Merits Of The Conviction Has Been Exhausted Or Waived. Once DHS Establishes That A Respondent Has A Criminal Conviction And That The Time For Filing A Direct Appeal Has Passed, A Presumption Arises That The Conviction Is Final For Immigration Purposes, Which Respondent Can Rebut With Evidence That An Appeal Has Been Timely Filed, Including Any Extensions Or Permissive Filings Granted By The Appellate Court, And That The Appeal Relates To The Issue of Guilt Or Innocence Or Concerns A Substantive Defect In The Criminal Proceedings. Appeals, Including Direct Appeals, And Collateral Attacks, That Do Not Relate To The Underlying Merits Of The Conviction Will Not Be Given Effect To Eliminate The Finality Of The Conviction.
On August 29, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) denied an appeal and remanded the record to the Immigration Judge (IJ) in a case where the respondent,… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That The Categorical Approach Does Not Govern Whether Violation Of A Protection Order Renders One Ineligible For Cancellation Of Removal
BIA Holds That The Categorical Approach Does Not Govern Whether Violation Of A Protection Order Per INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) Renders One Ineligible For Cancellation Of Removal Under INA §240A(b)(1)(C); Instead, Immigration… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That The Offense Of Sponsoring Or Exhibiting An Animal In An Animal Fighting Venture Is A Categorical Crime Invoking Moral Turpitude
BIA Holds That The Offense Of Sponsoring Or Exhibiting An Animal In An Animal Fighting Venture, In Violation of 7 U.S.C § 2156(a)(1), Is A Categorical Crime Invoking Moral Turpitude…. CONTINUE
San Francisco Immigration Lawyer Philip Levin Discusses the Tibbetts Case
TRANSCRIPT: Anchor: And new tonight at 9 complicating this already tragic case as we mentioned the suspect is an undocumented immigrant and is a similar case to the death… CONTINUE
One Who Is Subject To The Persecutor Bar To Asylum Eligibility May Claim A Limited Duress Defense.
The minimum requirements of such a asylum eligibility defense mandate that the applicant establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) He acted under an imminent threat of death… CONTINUE
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 22
- Next Page »