On May 22, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), continuing with its current post-Pereira post-Bermudez-Cota line of cases, dismissed the appeal of a respondent from an Immigration… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That Neither Rescission Of An In Absentia Order Of Removal Nor Termination Of Proceedings Is Required Where Respondent Failed To Appear At A Scheduled Hearing After Being Served With A Notice To Appear That Did Not Specify The Time And Place Of The Hearing, So Long As A Subsequent Notice Of Hearing Specifying That Information Was Properly Sent To Respondent. Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Distinguished.
On May 22, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), following up on its recent precedential jurisprudence concerning the effects of the issuance of a Notice to Appear… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That A Deficient Notice To Appear That Fails To Include The Time And Place Of A Respondent’s Initial Removal Hearing Is Perfected By The Subsequent Service Of A Notice Of Hearing Setting Forth That Missing Information, Satisfying The Notice Requirements OF INA §240A(d)(1)(A). Pereira v. Sessions, 138 s. Ct. 2105 (2018), Distinguished; Matter of Bermudez-Cota, 27 I & N Dec. 441 (BIA 2018), Followed.
On May 1, 2018, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), in an important en banc decision, held 9-6 that a defective Notice To Appear (NTA) that does not… CONTINUE
Attorney General William Barr Finds Matter of X-K, 23 I&N Dec. 731 (BIA 2005) Was Wrongly Decided And Overrules That Decision, Also Holding That One Who Is Transferred From Expedited Removal Proceedings To Full Removal Proceedings After Establishing A Credible Fear Of Persecution Or Torture Is Ineligible For Release On Bond And Must Be Detained Until Proceedings Conclude, Unless Granted Parole.
On April 16, 2019, U.S. Attorney General (AG) William Barr, in a case certified to his office, drastically altered the legal landscape for asylum seekers entering the U.S. without inspection… CONTINUE
BIA Holds That A Conviction For Kidnapping Under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 (a) Is Not An “Aggravated Felony” As That Term Is Defined By INA §101(a)(43)(H).
On April 12, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) terminating proceedings… CONTINUE
Attorney General Refers Decision Of BIA To Himself To Review Issues Relating To The Authority To Hold Bond Hearings For Certain Respondents Screened For Expedited Removal Proceedings, Staying The Case During His Review.
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
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- …
- 25
- Next Page »