These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Fifth Circuit has upheld the denial of a motion to reopen based on lack of notice because the petitioner did not provide a valid address to the Department of Homeland Security at the time of issuance of the Notice to Appear, and did not subsequently file a change of address form with the Immigration Court.
The full text of Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60847-CV0.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has broadly construed the conduct covered by 237(a)(1)(H) waivers, finding that a petitioner found deportable because his conditional residence was terminated is still eligible for the waiver if the termination was related to fraudulent conduct. In so doing, the Seventh Circuit joins the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the statute.
The full text of Acquaah v. Sessions can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a wave-through entry at the border qualifies as an "admission in any status" for the purpose of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents. The Ninth Circuit holding is in accordance with a prior decision issued by the Fifth Circuit.
The full text of Saldivar v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/11/07/13-72643.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a New York conviction for criminally negligent homicide is not a crime involving moral turpitude because crimes committed with criminal negligence generally require neither intent nor a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; thus, no sufficiently culpable mental state is necessary to commit such an offense.
The full text of Matter of Tavdidishvili can be found at:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has determined that a rape aggravated felony encompasses not only vaginal, oral, and anal intercourse, but also acts of digital or mechanical penetration of the vagina or anus, no matter how slight. The BIA has also determined that the required lack of consent can be established through a statutory requirement that the victim’s ability to appraise the nature of the conduct was substantially impaired and the offender had a culpable mental state as to such impairment. Such circumstances include where the victim’s mental capacity is substantially impaired as the result of an intoxicant administered without his or her consent, typically by the defendant, and where the victim is incapable of giving consent as a result of a mental disease or defect, and the defendant knew or had reason to know of the victim’s condition.
The full text of Matter of Keeley can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge does not have authority to terminate removal proceedings to give an arriving alien an opportunity to present an asylum claim to the Department of Homeland Security in the first instance. The Department of Homeland Security has the exclusive discretion whether to subject such individuals to the credible fear process or whether to initiate removal proceedings, and once a charging document has been filed, the Immigration Judge has exclusive jurisdiction over the asylum application.
The full text of Matter of J-A-B- & I-J-V-A can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Arkansas conviction for third degree domestic battery is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The court determined that the statute is divisible, but subsection (a)(1), which requires the infliction of injury, meets the definition of a violent felony because the infliction of injury necessarily requires the use of violent force. Given the similar definition of a violent felony and crime of violence in the immigration context, this case may be persuasive in immigration proceedings.
The full text of US v. Moore can be found here:
In a published decision, the Fifth Circuit has determined that misprision of a felony is a crime involving moral turpitude. In so doing, the court splits with the Ninth Circuit on this issue.
The full text of Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60639-CV0.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has issued a decision requiring Immigration Judges to consider a detainee's financial circumstances and alternatives to detention during an initial bond hearing under section 236(a) of the INA. "Since the government’s purpose in conditioning release on the posting of a bond in a certain amount is to 'provide enough incentive for released detainees to appear in the future, we cannot understand why it would ever refuse to consider financial circumstances: the amount of bond that is reasonably likely to secure the appearance of an indigent person obviously differs from the amount that is reasonably likely to secure a wealthy person’s appearance. Nor can we understand why the government would refuse to consider alternatives to monetary bonds that would also serve the same interest the bond requirement purportedly advances." The decision also calls for new bond hearings where these considerations were not taken into account during the original bond determination.
The full text of Hernandez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/02/16-56829.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the exception to removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA (present without admission or parole) applies only to a VAWA self petitioner. It does not apply to a respondent who has been subjected to extreme cruelty, but who has not applied for benefits as a VAWA self petitioner. The instant case involved a respondent who fled domestic violence in Guatemala at the hands of family members.
The full text of Matter of Pangan-Sis can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had held that a lawful permanent resident is ineligible for a 212(h) waiver if he was inspected, admitted, and physically entered the country as a lawful permanent resident at any time in the past, even if such admission was not the alien’s most recent acquisition of lawful permanent resident status. In the instant case, the respondent was initially granted lawful permanent residence through consular processing in 1967, was convicted of an aggravated felony in 2007, re-adjusted his status in 2009, and was convicted of another aggravated felony in 2015. The BIA found him ineligible for a 212(h) waiver after the second offense, on the ground that he was previously inspected, admitted, and physically entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1967, even though his current status as a lawful permanent resident was achieved in 2009 through adjustment of status.
The full text of Matter of Vella can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1003441/download
An applicant is ineligible for VAWA cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents if he is inadmissible for commission of two crimes involving moral turpitude. The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a petitioner cannot use a 212(h) waiver to waive this ground of inadmissibility in order to make himself eligible for VAWA cancellation. In so doing, the court deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Y-N-P-.
The full text of Arevalo v. US Attorney General can be found here:
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201611458.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that when the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismisses the appeal of a negative reasonable fear determination by an Immigration Judge, even when the dismissal is on jurisdictional grounds, that decision qualifies as a final order of removal for appellate jurisdictional purposes. As such, so long as the petition for review is filed within 30 days of the BIA's decision, the federal appeals court has jurisdiction to review the decision.
The full text of Martinez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/10/12/14-70339.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a conviction under Missouri's attempted first degree assault statute is a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines. The court determined that Missouri's definition of attempt is not overbroad, and that the infliction of serious physical injury upon a victim is sufficient to demonstrate that physical force was employed. Given the similarity between the definition of a crime of violence in the sentencing guidelines and in the immigration context, this decision has persuasive impact on immigration cases.
The full text of US v. Minnis can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that Illinois' felon in possession of a firearm is broader than the definition of a firearms-related aggravated felony because Illinois' statute criminalizes possession of pneumatic weapons. The court further determined that the conviction is indivisible. As such, a conviction under Illinois' felon in possession of a firearm statute will never qualify as a firearms-related aggravated felony.
The full text of Rodriguez-Contreras v. Sessions can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit overruled its prior decision holding that a petitioner in reinstatement proceedings does not have standing to challenge the statute and regulation that ban him from applying for asylum. However, in reaching the merits of the claim, the court determined that the statute clearly renders such a petitioner ineligible for asylum.
The full text of Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Khan and reaffirmed that Immigration Judges have the authority to review the denial of a waiver of inadmissibility submitted in conjunction with a U visa application.
The decision in Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) unofficial rule that any birth certificate registered more than one year after the subject's birth is insufficient to establish the family ties of the person. "Even if a birth certificate does not reflect that its registration was contemporaneous with the birth, an adjudicator may conclude that it is sufficiently reliable to establish parentage, depending on the circumstances. In making this determination, the adjudicator should consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, (1) information in the FAM regarding the availability and reliability of birth registrations in the country of birth during the time period at issue; (2) the length of time between the birth and the registration; (3) any credible explanation proffered by the petitioner as to the personal, societal, or historical circumstances that prevented a particular birth certificate from being registered contemporaneously, and any evidence in support of that explanation; (4) any credible explanation for why a particular birth certificate was lost or destroyed; (5) any evidence that the parental relationship was independently corroborated prior to the registration of the birth; (6) the length of time between the birth registration and the filing of the visa petition; and (7) information regarding whether the document was based on facts that were contemporaneous with the birth or on facts that were more recently established."
The BIA also enumerated the following of secondary evidence that a petitioner may submit to establish his or her relationship with a sibling beneficiary: (1) governmental, medical, religious, school, financial, employment, insurance, or residential records that reflect the names of the parent(s) and child; (2) family photographs with notations indicating the persons photographed, as well as the date and place they were taken; (3) correspondence, preferably with the original envelope, showing the date written and referring to the parent(s) and child; (4) affidavits by persons who have personal knowledge of the birth; and (5) the results of DNA testing conducted in a prescribed manner, as explained to the petitioner by USCIS. Given the advances in DNA testing in recent years, the USCIS should encourage petitioners to pursue this option, particularly if little other secondary evidence is available. Secondary evidence that was created contemporaneous with the birth will be the most persuasive.
The full text of Matter of Rehman can be found here:
In an unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Florida conviction for criminal use of personal identification information is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. "Because the least culpable conduct under § 817.568(2)(a) involves the specific intent to possess personal information with intent to defraud, the BIA reasonably concluded that Petitioner’s offense involves moral turpitude."
The full text of Vlichez-Bello v. Attorney General can be found here:
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201616764.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner's departure from the United States prior to filing an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), on its own, does not constitute a valid waiver of his right to appeal. "[E]ven though the departure-waiver regulation expressly states that an alien’s departure constitutes a waiver of his right to appeal to the BIA, an IJ must inform an alien who requests immediate removal that his departure would constitute a waiver of his right to appeal."
The full text of Chavez-Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/09/21/14-72172.pdf
