5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia A Date of this notice: 4/9/2014
|
|
- Geraldine Shields
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia JoseW. Vega Jose W. Vega Law Firm, PLLC 440 Louisiana St., Ste. 500 Houston, TX Name: CRUZ, JOSE ARMANDO Riders: OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - HOU 126 Northpoint Drive, Suite 2020 Houston, TX A Date of this notice: 4/9/2014 Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Enclosure Panel Members: Wendtland, Linda S. Greer, Anne J. Pauley, Roger Sincerely, DCrutL c tvvtj Donna Carr Chief Clerk yungc Userteam: Docket For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
2 U.S. Department ot:justice Executiye Offic for Immigration Review Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Falls Church, Virginia Files: A Houston, TX A Date: APR In re: JOSE ARMANDO CRUZ EVELIA DON GONZALEZ CRUZ IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Jose W. Vega, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: CHARGE: April Silva Assistant Chief Counsel Notice: Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1l82(a)(6)(A)(i)] - APPLICATION: Adjustment of status Present without being admitted or paroled (both respondents-conceded) The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) appeals from the Immigration Judge's October 12, 2011, decision granting the respondents adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. l 255(i), based on an approved Alien Relative Petition (Form I-130) filed on the lead respondent's behalf by his United States citizen sister. 1 The DHS's request for oral argument is denied. See 8 C.F.R l(e)(7). The agency's appeal will be dismissed, and the record will be remanded for security and background investigations or examinations. We review findings of fact, including credibility findings, for clear error. See 8 C.F.R l(d)(3)(i); see also Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260 (BIA 2007); Matter of S-H-, 23 l&n Dec. 462, (BIA 2002). We review questions of law, discretion, or judgment, and all other issues de novo. See 8 C.F.R l(d)(3){ii). The following facts are not in dispute. The lead respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, first arrived in the United States in 1992 (l.j. at 2; Tr. at 60). Thereafter, in October 1997, he was arrested by United States immigration authorities in conjunction with a worksite enforcement action, and as a result, he returned to Mexico the same month (l.j. at 2; Tr. at 60-61; 1 Jose Armando Cruz (A ) will be referred to hereinafter as the lead respondent. The rider respondent, Evelia Don Gonzalez Cruz (A ), is married to Mr. Cruz (l.j. at 2; Tr. at 63, 66; Exhs. 2E, 4E). Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
3 J. A i et al... Exh. 6). He then returned to the United States illegally in May 1999 and never departed from the United States thereafter (l.j. at 2; Tr. at 62). In granting the respondents' adjustment applications, the Immigration Judge did not identify any statutory grounds of inadmissibility; nor did he find any basis for denying relief in the exercise of discretion (1.J. at 3-5). On appeal, the DHS does not challenge the respondents' general ability to seek adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act or identify any error in the Immigration Judge's discretionary determination. Instead, the agency only contends that the Immigration Judge erred in finding the respondents statutorily eligible to adjust their statuses as the lead respondent allegedly is inadmissible under section 212 of the Act, 8 U.S.C (DHS Brief at 3). See Matter of Naulu, 19 l&n Dec. 351 (BIA 1986) (requiring the principal adjustment applicant to adjust before any derivative beneficiaries are able to derive a benefit under the visa petition). Specifically, the agency contends that the lead respondent triggered section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) of the Act by virtue of the fact that he accrued more than 180 days, but less than 1 year, of unlawful presence in the United States between the provision's effective date of April I, 1997, and his October 1997 departure, and then he again sought admission in 1999 when he returned to the United States without first being inspected and admitted or paroled (DHS Brief at 5, 9-10). 2 We agree with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the lead respondent is not now inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act, as he is now applying to be assimilated to the position of one seeking admission through his adjustment application, and this application is being pursued more than 3 years after he last departed from the United States (l.j. at 3-5). See, e.g., Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397, (BIA 2011) (explaining that we treat certain aliens as assimilated to the position of one seeking admission or having been admitted where they are pursuing or have been granted adjustment of status rather than being admitted at a port of entry with an immigrant visa); see also Matter of Alarcon, 20 I&N Dec. 557 {BIA 1992). Were we to adopt the position set forth by the DHS, we would transform the ground of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) of the Act into a permanent ground of inadmissibility for all of the lead respondent's applications for admission after the expiration of the 3-year period set forth in the statute (DHS Brief at 9-10). Instead, for the reasons outlined below, we conclude that, although the statutory language at section 212(a)(9)(B) is ambiguous, the DHS position is not consistent with our understanding of the Congressional intent for this provision as ascertained through a review of the statutory structure, legislative history, and pertinent interpreting authorities. First, section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act has always been understood in our precedents as creating temporary 3- and 10-year bars (in sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act, respectively) to an alien's admissibility following his departure from the United States after 2 The DHS does not contend that the lead respondent comes within section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act, creating permanent inadmissibility for an alien who has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than I year, and who then reenters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted. 2 Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
4 A et al. having been unlawfully present for (respectively) more than 180 days, or 1 year or more. See, e.g., Matter of Lemus, 24 I&N Dec. 373, 377 (BIA 2007) (citing with approval Cervantes Ascencio v. INS, 326 F.3d 83, (2d Cir. 2003), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit construed section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Act as imposing a "IO-year bar to readmission" for certain aliens), pet. for review granted on other grounds, Lemus-Losa v. Holder, 576 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2009), on remand, Matter of Lemus, 25 I&N Dec. 734 (BIA 2012); Matter of Rodarte, 23 I&N Dec. 905, 909 (BIA 2006) (characterizing section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act as "providing for the temporary inadmissibility of aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for certain continuous periods and who are seeking admission after having departed," in contrast with the "permanent inadmissibility" that was created by section 212(a)(9)(C) of the Act for aliens who enter or attempt to reenter unlawfully after previous immigration violations (emphasis added)). Likewise, Congress acknowledged in the iegislative history for section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act that "[a]n alien unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than 1 year who voluntarily departed the United States is barred from admission for 3 years." See id. at 910 (quoting the Conference Committee Report for the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, H.R. Rep. No. I , at (1996)); see also Memorandum, D. Neufeld, Consolidation of Guidance Concerning Unlawful Presence for Purposes of Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(/) of the Act (May 6, 2009) at 2 (discussing "[t]he three- and ten-year bars to admissibility of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Act and the permanent bar to admissibility of section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) [of the Act]"). Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Congress intended to penalize an alien's unlawful presence by, upon his subsequent departure, temporarily prohibiting his readmission into the United States, unless a waiver supported by a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying relative is obtained under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act. However, we do not construe these comments as reflecting any intent to create a permanent bar to an alien's readmission where the alien did not remain abroad or successfully obtain a waiver of inadmissibility during the time period in which the bar applies. It is the alien's unlawful presence followed by his departure from the United States that gives rise to the (temporary) ground of inadmissibility and not the very act of returning to the United States during the period in which the bar applies. Second, we note parallels in the language of section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act with the longstanding application of section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act, which similarly provides for inadmissibility for certain aliens who "seek... admission" within specified time periods after a pertinent event. In the case of section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act, the pertinent event is a previous removal. We are aware of no case involving a previously removed alien who sought readmission during the ''time bar" period (and who did not come within the exception for aliens who have obtained the Attorney General's consent to reapply for admission) where that alien was deemed permanently inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act. by this Board or a court of competent jurisdiction. Indeed, as with section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act itself, our precedent strongly suggests the contrary. See Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866, (BIA 2006) (stating that "[a]:fter the relevant inadmissibility period [under section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) of the Act] has elapsed, an alien's prior removal no longer stands as a bar to reapplication for admission," and that "[s]ection 212(a)(9)(C)(i) [of the Act] differs significantly from section 212(a)(9)(A)(ii) [of the Act] in that it incorporates no temporal limitations on inadmissibility... "). We do not see how section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act, presenting very 3 Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
5 v A et al. similar "seeks admission" language to that used in section 212(a)(9)(A) of the Act, can be meaningfully distinguished. 3 which Third, a "plain language" reading of the statute does not support the DHS's proffered construction. We agree with the DHS that the lead respondent "sought admission" when he reentered without inspection in 1999 (DHS Brief at 5). See section 235(a)(l) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(l) (an alien who is present in the United States without having been admitted shall be deemed an applicant for admission). Nevertheless, we disagree with the agency's assertion that this action renders the lead respondent permanently inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act, even after the 3-year period referenced by that provision has expired. Specifically, if section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act created inadmissibility for an alien who seeks or has sought admission to the United States (similar to section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Act's provision for the inadmissibility of an alien who "seeks" or "has sought" to procure admission or another immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact), we might construe the statute as creating permanent rather than temporary inadmissibility. However, the statute simply states that an alien is inadmissible if he "seeks" admission within the pertinent period, is ambiguous language. In view of that ambiguous language, together with the light cast on the meaning of this language by the authorities and legislative history cited herein, we conclude that section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act creates a temporary bar to admissibility. Although the lead respondent would have been inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act if he had applied for adjustment of status when he returned to the United States in 1999, which was within the applicable 3-year period, that temporary ground of inadmissibility has now expired. Thus, in the absence of any other identified statutory bars to relief, the respondents are eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act. Moreover, because the Immigration Judge granted the respondents' applications and did not identify any negative discretionary basis for denying them, we conclude that, on this record, the respondents are deserving of adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent residents. Accordingly, the following orders shall be entered. ORDER: The DHS's appeal is dismissed. FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to 8 C.F.R l(d)(6), the record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for the purpose of allowing the DHS the opportunity to complete or update 3 Although a significant number of aliens who are found inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Act may qualify for a discretionary waiver under section 212(a)(9)(B)(v) of the Act, the fact remains that a waiver is unavailable if the alien does not have a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent who would suffer extreme hardship resulting from the refusal of the alien's admission. 4 Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
6 . A et al. identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R (h). r/)na. J ck11j / RTHEBOARD 5 Cite as: Jose Armando Cruz, A (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
7 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT Houston, Texa s File A A In the Ma tter of JOSE ARMANDO CRUZ EVELIA DON GONZALEZ CRUZ CHARGE: Respondents APPLICATION: APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Jose W. Vega, Esquire 440 Louisia na Avenue Suite 500 Houston, Texa s ) ) ) ) ) Da te: October 12, 2011 IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS Section 212 (a )(6) (A) (i) of the Immigra tion and Na tiona lity Act, as amended -.present without admission or pa role Adjus tment of sta tus under Section 245(i) of the Immigra tion and Na tiona lity Act, as amended ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: April Silva, Esquire Assista nt Chief Counsel Houston, Texa s ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The Government filed two Notices to Appea r da ted March 19, The Respondents appea red with counsel on October 1,
8 2009, admitted the allega tions on the Notices to Appea r and conceded the remova l cha rges. The remova l cha rges are not in controversy. The sole issue before this Court is the Respondents' eligibility for relief from remova l. FINDINGS OF FACT The lea d Respondent, Jose Arma ndo Cruz, and his spouse, are deemed to be credible as witnesses. They were responsive to questions. The uncerta inty about da tes is attributed to the pa ssa ge of time. Aside from tha t, both Respondents' testimony is consistent and pla usible, and their ca ndor and demea nor wa rra nt belief tha t the informa tion they provided is true. The following findings of fa ct rela te to the Respondents' relief applica tions. The lea d Respondent first entered the United Sta tes some time in He wa s arrested at a worksite during an enforcement action some time in October After a period of detention la sting a number of hours, the Respondent wa s returned to Mexico in the sa me month, October The lea d Respondent returned to the United Sta tes illega lly in Ma y of Subsequent to tha t arriva l, the Respondent did not depa rt.. Neither of the Respondents ha s ever been arrested, other than the lea d Respondent, by irmnigra tion authorities. The Respondents are ma rried to ea ch other, and they ha ve two children born in the United Sta tes. The petitioner for the A /A October 12, 2011
9 lea d Respondent is his U. S. citizen sister. His mother filed a visa petition ea rlier in LAW AND ANALYSIS An applica nt for adjustment of sta tus under Section 245(i) of the Act must (1) be physica lly present in the United Sta tes, (2) ha ve entered the United Sta tes without inspection, or fall within the ca tegories of Aliens described under Section 245 (c) of the Act, (3) be eligible to receive an immigra nt visa, and be admissible to the United Sta tes (not excluda ble under Section 212(a ) of the Act), (4) pa y a required filing fee, (5) ha ve an immigra nt visa immedia tely ava ila ble, and (6) an immigra nt visa petition or la bor certif ica tion must ha ve been filed on beha lf of the applica nt on or bef ore April 30, The pa rties are in agreement tha t the Respondents are both eligible for adjustment of sta tus, except the Government asserts tha t the Respondent rema ins subject to exclusion under Section 212 (a )(9) (B) (i) of the Act, beca use he accumula ted unla wf ul presence in the United Sta tes, and returned within either ten yea rs or three yea rs of the accumula tion of this unla wful presence. The Respondent, for his pa rt, argues tha t, after he wa s given some type of return to Mexico in October 1997, although he re-entered illega lly, he did not ma ke any subsequent depa rtures, and he is now applying for la wful admission to the United Sta tes more tha n three yea rs after his depa rture in October A /A October 12, 2011
10 Section 212(a) (9) (B) (i) of the Act provides an exclusion ground that applies to any Alien who was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than a year, and who seeks readmission within three years of the date of the Alien's departure, or under a second paragraph, an Alien who has been unlawfully in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within ten years of the date of such Alien's departure or removal from the United States. It is well-settled in precedent Board decisions, with some exceptions in the Fifth Circuit relating 212(h) waivers, that an applicant for adjustment of status is assimilated to the status of an applicant for entry. See, for example, Matter of Connelly, 19 I&N Dec. 156, 159 (BIA 1984), Matter of Rainford, 20 I&N Dec. 598 ( BIA 1992 ). There is a Board decision that addresses the 212(9) exclusion ground where the adjustment applicant applied for adjustment within ten years of the applicant's departure from the United States. This is distinct from the fact pattern in the instant record, where the Respondent is clearly applying for adjustment of status, that is, lawful admission to the United States, more than ten years after his departure from the United States. Regardless of which bar is considered, whether it be the three-year bar or the ten-year bar, the Respondent is applying for lawful admission outside of those time periods. Since the Respondent is applying for admission more than A /A October 12, 2011
11 \ ten year and more than three years after his last departure from the United States, the bar under Section 212 (a) (9) (B) {i) does not attach. Based on this understanding of the statute asserted as an exclusion ground, the Respondents are both deemed to be eligible,,. for adjustment of status, that is, specifically, not subject to exclusion under Section 212 (a) (9) (B) (i) of the Act, or any other part of Section 212(a) (9). The Respondents are deemed to be eligible for adjustment of status as a matter of law. Also, since adjustment of status is also an exercise of discretion, the Respondents, based on this record, are deemed to be eligible for adjustment of status in the exercise of discretion as well, since there is no adverse information in this record other than the lead Respondent's and the co-respondent's illegally entries to the United States. This is a negative factor; however, it is outweighed by two U. S. citizen children, and the absence of any pattern of antisocial behavior on the part of either Respondent. In summary, the Respondents are eligible for adjustment of status, both as a matter of law and in the exercise of discretion, and the applications will be gr anted. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondents are GRANTED adjustment of status under Section 245 (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. A /A October 12, 2011
12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government issue all necessa ry documents to give effect to this Order. WILLIAM K. ZIMMER Immigration Judge A /A October 12, 2011
13 , (. CERTIFICATE PAGE I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before WILLIAM K. ZIMMER, in the matter of: was held as herein appears, JOSE ARMANDO CRUZ A EVELIA DON GONZALEZ CRUZ A Houston, Texas and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Nicola Delph, Transcriber YORK STENOGRAPHIC SERVICES, INC. 34 North George Street York, Pennsylvania (717) nad/seh December 6, 2011 Completion Date
5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia Date of this notice: 12/31/2013
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530 Monique Carreras-Amadeo,
More informationInteroffice Memorandum
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington. DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Interoffice Memorandum To: Field Leadership From: Donald Neufeld Is! Acting
More informationD~ Ctvvu. U.S. Department of Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 leesburg Pike. Suite 2000 Falls Church. V1rgm1a 2204 / Lopez, Andres The Lopez Law
More informationU.S. Department Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
~ U.S. Department Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 Brown, Christina, Esq. The
More informationImmigrant & Refugee Appellate Center
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 Lisa Seifert Seifert Law
More informationU.S. Department of Justice. Executive Office for Immigration Review. Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 20530 Leyba, Gabriel G., Esq. Ggleyva
More informationAPPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005
The American Immigration Law Foundation 515 28th Street Des Moines, IA 50312 www.asistaonline.org PRACTICE ADVISORY APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED:
More informationIrorere v. Atty Gen USA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-1-2009 Irorere v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-1288 Follow this and
More informationINTERIM DECISION #3150: MATTER OF STOCKWELL
INTERIM DECISION #3150: MATTER OF STOCKWELL Volume 20 (Page 309) MATTER OF STOCKWELL In Deportation Proceedings A-28541697 Decided by Board May 31, 1991 (1) An alien holding conditional permanent resident
More informationMatter of Khanh Hoang VO, Respondent
Matter of Khanh Hoang VO, Respondent Decided March 4, 2011 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Where the substantive offense underlying an alien
More informationTermination of the Central American Minors Parole Program
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 08/16/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-16828, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [CIS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.
Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Raquel Castillo-Torres petitions for review of an order by the Board of
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 13, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT RAQUEL CASTILLO-TORRES, Petitioner, v. ERIC
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
RESTRICTED Case: 16-72269, 01/10/2017, ID: 10261504, DktEntry: 10-1, Page 1 of 40 Case No. 16-72269 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, v. LORETTA LYNCH,
More informationCopyright American Immigration Council, Reprinted with permission
Copyright American Immigration Council, Reprinted with permission PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 August 28, 2013 ADVANCE PAROLE FOR DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS (DACA) RECIPIENTS By the Legal Action Center
More informationMatter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent
Matter of Enrique CASTREJON-COLINO, Respondent Decided October 28, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an alien has the right
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT CONCEPCION PADILLA-CALDERA, v. Petitioner, ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 04-9573 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
More informationMemorandum Subject To Date (BIA November 24, 2009) December 3, 2009 From Brian O'Leary, Chief Immigration Judge MaryBeth Keller, Assistant Chief Immig
Os O ret O N Complaint Number: r l Immigration Judge: (b)(6) Complaint Received Date:.4" CE PQ cs) Co" a cri Complaint Narrative: 00 ON Os as as c, 1 c, c, c) c c) 00 en N Co O es, isi (-4 e.si... c, en
More informationImmigration Law's Catch-22: The Case for Removing the Three and Ten-Year Bars
Penn State Law From the SelectedWorks of Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia 2014 Immigration Law's Catch-22: The Case for Removing the Three and Ten-Year Bars Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia Available at: https://works.bepress.com/shoba_wadhia/31/
More information9 FAM 40.6 EXHIBIT I GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY AVAILABLE WAIVERS
9 FAM 40.6 EXHIBIT I GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY AVAILABLE WAIVERS (CT:VISA-1613; 01-04-2010) (Office of Origin: CA/VO/L/R) HEALTH RELATED GROUNDS Class of Inadmissibility NIV Waivers IV Waivers Communicable
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 07-2183 For the Seventh Circuit MARGARITA DEL ROCIO BORREGO, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petition for
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-2550 LOLITA WOOD a/k/a LOLITA BENDIKIENE, v. Petitioner, MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States, Petition for Review
More informationIn re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent
In re Rodolfo AVILA-PEREZ, Respondent File A96 035 732 - Houston Decided February 9, 2007 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Section 201(f)(1)
More informationAuthority INA 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 212(d)(5)(A), 235(a), and 245(a), (c); 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1182(d)(5)(A), 1225(a), and 1255(a), (c)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services November 15,2013 PM-602-0091
More informationMatter of Z. VALDEZ, Respondent
Matter of A.J. VALDEZ, Respondent Matter of Z. VALDEZ, Respondent Decided December 20, 2018 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) An alien
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:18-cv-10225 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON JIMENEZ, ) ) Civ. No. Petitioner, ) ) ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF KIRSTJEN
More informationImmigrant & Refugee Appellate Center
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Q[fice of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church. Virginia 20530 DOMINGUEZ-PARRA, JAVIER 0
More informationProvisional Waiver Gaining Ground With Frustrated Immigrant As the Last Option
It is no longer gainsaying to say that there are many immigrants in the United States today who are stranded due to their mode of entry. These immigrants entered the U.S. without inspection. They are married
More informationInteroffice Memorandum
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington. DC 20529 U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services HQ 70/21.1 AD07-18 Interoffice Memorandum To: Field Leadership From: Lori
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No BIA No. A versus
[PUBLISH] YURG BIGLER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-10971 BIA No. A18-170-979 versus FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT March 27,
More informationUpdate: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply?
Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2014 1 Section 212(h) of the INA is an important waiver of inadmissibility based on certain crimes.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A
Nau Velazquez-Macedo v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 1117145135 Case: 13-10896 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10896
More informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION DHS ANNOUNCES UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL TO THE INTERIOR
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 August 13, 2004 DHS ANNOUNCES UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF EXPEDITED REMOVAL TO THE INTERIOR By Mary Kenney The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
More informationALL THOSE RULES ABOUT CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE
Practice Advisory December 2017 ALL THOSE RULES ABOUT CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE By Kathy Brady, ILRC Different Rules Govern Consequences of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude A conviction of a crime
More informationPolicy Memorandum. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. May 10,2018 PM Accrual of Unlawful Presence and F, J, and M Nonimmigrants
FOR PUBUC COMMENT Posted: 05-11-2018 Cornmentperiodends: 06-11-2018 U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Ofice of the Director (MS 2000) Washington, DC 20529-2000
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN ASHCROFT, as Attorney General of the ) United States; TOM RIDGE, as Secretary of the
More informationAdditional Guidance Regarding Surviving Spouses of Deceased U.S. Citizens and their Children (REVISED)
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington. DC 20529 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Interoffice Memorandum HQDOMO 70/6.1.I-P 70/6.1.3-P AFMUpdate ADIO-09 To: Executive
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bautista v. Sabol et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT A. BAUTISTA, : No. 3:11cv1611 Petitioner : : (Judge Munley) v. : : MARY E. SABOL, WARDEN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60546 Document: 00513123078 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 21, 2015 FANY JACKELINE
More informationRules and Regulations
46697 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 174 Friday, September 7, 2001 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect,
More informationUNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
Stacy Tolchin (CA SBN #1) Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin S. Spring St., Suite 00A Los Angeles, CA 001 Telephone: (1) -0 Facsimile: (1) - Email: Stacy@Tolchinimmigration.com Meredith R. Brown (CA SBN #) Law
More informationFlor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510)
Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box 70976 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 380-8229 DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMGRATION APPEALS
More informationMatter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents
Matter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents Decided August 21, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an applicant has filed an asylum application
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: February 18, 2016 Decided: July 29, 2016) Docket No.
0 cv Guerra v. Shanahan et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 01 (Argued: February 1, 01 Decided: July, 01) Docket No. 1 0 cv DEYLI NOE GUERRA, AKA DEYLI NOE GUERRA
More informationAILA InfoNet Doc. No (Posted 01/26/10)
MAY 1 9 2009 U.S. Department ofhomeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office a/the Director (MS 2000). Washington, DC 20529-2000 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Memorandum
More informationShahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2002 Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2558 Follow
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2771 Mary Mwihaki Hamilton, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder,
More information741 F.3d 1228 (2014) No United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. January 17, 2014.
Page 1 of 7 741 F.3d 1228 (2014) Raquel Pascoal WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULLTEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0176p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT YOUNG HEE KWAK, Petitioner, X v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Agency No. A versus
Case: 15-11954 Date Filed: 07/05/2016 Page: 1 of 19 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-11954 Agency No. A079-061-829 KAP SUN BUTKA, Petitioner, versus U.S.
More informationSpotting Inadmissibility Issues in Immigration Cases BY: KRUTI J. PATEL AND LARA K. WAGNER
Spotting Inadmissibility Issues in Immigration Cases BY: KRUTI J. PATEL AND LARA K. WAGNER Inadmissibility v. Removability INADMISSIBILITY Before the government gives you statusin the United States Examples:
More informationEnclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely, Don.n.L c l1.j'vl.) Donna Carr Chief Clerk
U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Office of the Clerk 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2000 Falls Church, Virginia 22041 Soni, Munmeeth Kaur Immigrant
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2044 Carlos Caballero-Martinez lllllllllllllllllllllpetitioner v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllrespondent
More informationLloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-6-2015 Lloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationMatter of CHRISTO'S, INC. Decided April 9,2015 s
Matter of CHRISTO'S, INC. Decided April 9,2015 s U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office (1) An alien who submits false documents representing
More informationLooking Beyond DACA/DAPA Part 1: Advance Parole June 28, 2016
Looking Beyond DACA/DAPA Part 1: Advance Parole June 28, 2016 Presented By Peter Schey Executive Director Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... 1 I. Political
More informationn a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild
n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild PRACTICE ADVISORY: SAMPLE CARACHURI-ROSENDO MOTIONS June 21, 2010 By Simon Craven, Trina Realmuto and Dan Kesselbrenner 1 Prior to
More informationMEMO RE: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR APPLICANTS WITH TPS AND ADVANCED PAROLE
MEMO RE: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR APPLICANTS WITH TPS AND ADVANCED PAROLE To: DePaul University CBO Partners From: DePaul University Asylum & Immigration Law Clinic Date: September 2010 Re: Adjustment
More informationNOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0140n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0140n.06 No. 18-3493 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL VILLAFANA QUEVEDO, v. Petitioner, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
More informationBRIEF OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION AND THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS ) In Re AGUILAR-CERDA, Juan Carlos ) Case No.: A075-819-055 ) Respondent. ) ) REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSÉ GARCIA-CORTEZ; ALICIA CHAVARIN-CARRILLO, No. 02-70866 Petitioners, Agency Nos. v. A75-481-361 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
-PJK Cuello v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director of Doc. 10 Roberto Mendoza Cuello, Jr. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN
More informationIn Deport tion Proceedings A
MATTER OF LOK In Deport tion Proceedings A-31327663 Decided by Board July 31, 1981 (1) The lawful permanent resident status of an alien terminates within the meaning of section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A
Liliana Marin v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 920070227 Dockets.Justia.com [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-13576 Non-Argument Calendar BIA Nos. A95-887-161
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 15 2063 NIKOLAY ZYAPKOV, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petition for Review of an
More informationRE: Form I-212: Permission to Reapply for Admission [INA 212(a)(9)(A)(i)]
June 23, 2016 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ATTN: 601/212 Foreign Filers 1820 E. Skyharbor, Circle S, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85034 RE: Form I-212: Permission to Reapply for Admission
More informationCase 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,
More informationF I L E D August 26, 2013
Case: 12-60547 Document: 00512359083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 26, 2013 Lyle
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DAOHUA YU, A Petitioner,
RESTRICTED Case: 11-70987, 08/13/2012, ID: 8285939, DktEntry: 13-1, Page 1 of 21 No. 11-70987 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAOHUA YU, A099-717-691 Petitioner, v. ERIC H.
More informationImmigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences
Order Code RL32657 Immigration-Related Document Fraud: Overview of Civil, Criminal, and Immigration Consequences Updated December 18, 2006 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division
More informationBrian Wilson v. Attorney General United State
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2016 Brian Wilson v. Attorney General United State Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationCHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 What Is Parole?
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Parole in Immigration Law Chapter 1 This chapter includes: 1.1 What Is Parole?... 1-1 1.2 The Parole Power: One Little Statutory Provision, Lots of Parole... 1-2 1.3 Parole and
More informationRe: Request for Prosecutorial Discretion; Joint Motion to Reopen and Terminate Requestor: (A )
, Deputy Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel, Baltimore Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security Fallon Federal Building 31 Hopkins Plaza, Room 1600 Baltimore MD 21201
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE
Christopher R. Macaraeg, Esq. Law Offices of Christopher R, Macaraeg 424 F Street, Suite C San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619 235-2525 Fax: (619 235-9510 DETAINED ALIEN UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-3582 HUSNI MOH D ALI EL-GAZAWY, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-1033 WESCLEY FONSECA PEREIRA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 07-3396 & 08-1452 JESUS LAGUNAS-SALGADO, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petitions
More informationCANCELLATION OF REMOVAL
Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL Jesus M. Ruiz-Velasco IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, LLP 203 NORTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 1550 CHICAGO, IL 60601 PH:
More informationAFTER TPS: OPTIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Practice Advisory June 2018 AFTER TPS: OPTIONS AND NEXT STEPS By ILRC Attorneys Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, will end for hundreds of thousands of individuals in late 2018 and 2019. 1 As TPS recipients
More informationand Immigration Services
\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 u.s. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: INRE:
More informationMatter of Siegfred Ara SIERRA, Respondent
Matter of Siegfred Ara SIERRA, Respondent Decided April 8, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Under the law of the United States Court
More informationCHILDREN AND IMMIGRATION
CHILDREN AND IMMIGRATION NICHOLAS A. CIPRIANNI FAMILY LAW AMERICAN INN OF COURT SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 Presenters: Stephanie Gonzalez, Esquire Barry Kassel, Esquire Maggie Niebler, Esquire Janice Sulman, Esquire
More informationANALYSIS AND PRACTICE POINTERS
ANALYSIS AND PRACTICE POINTERS VAWA 05 Immigration Provisions 1 This summary is organized by topic, in the following order: (1) a new DNA testing law that applies to all detained noncitizens; (2) expanding
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION. 8 CFR Part 212 RIN 1651-AA97 USCBP
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 03/08/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-04741, and on FDsys.gov 9111-14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
More informationWAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY
CHAPTER 7 WAIVERS OF INADMISSIBILITY Overview The purpose of this chapter is to explain the eligibility requirements for waivers of certain inadmissibility grounds, set forth the legal standards used for
More informationMatter of J-R-G-P-, Respondent
Matter of J-R-G-P-, Respondent Decided October 31, 2018 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals Where the evidence regarding an application for protection
More informationCase 2:06-cv MJP Document 98-6 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-01411-MJP Document 98-6 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 5 Name#1 Counsel for Respondent(s Chief Counsel Law Firm (If Applicable Name #2 Address 1 Deputy Chief Counsel Address 2 Name #3 Assistant
More informationChapter 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO HARDSHIP AND THE MANUAL. This chapter includes:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO HARDSHIP AND THE MANUAL Hardship in Immigration Law Chapter 1 This chapter includes: 1.1 Introduction... 1-1 1.2 How Does Hardship Come into Play?... 1-1 1.3 Hardship Is a Discretionary
More informationExecutive Discretion as to Immigration: Legal Overview
Executive Discretion as to Immigration: Legal Overview Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney April 1, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R43782
More informationOwen Johnson v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-14-2015 Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationFederico Flores v. Atty Gen USA
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 Federico Flores v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-1472 Follow
More informationIn re FINNAIR FLIGHT AY103
Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA 2001) Interim Decision #3452 In re FINNAIR FLIGHT AY103 File A99 970 080 - New York City Decided June 26, 2001 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review
More informationFALSE CLAIMS TO U.S. CITIZENSHIP: CONSEQUENCES AND POSSIBLE DEFENSES 1 (July 2014) by Jessica Chicco and Zahava Stern 2
CENTER for HUMAN RIGHTS and INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE at BOSTON COLLEGE POST-DEPORTATION HUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT Boston College Law School, 885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02459 Tel 617.552.9261 Fax 617.552.9295
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. JESUS CONTRERAS-BOCANEGRA, Petitioner,
No. 10-9500 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT JESUS CONTRERAS-BOCANEGRA, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ON REVIEW FROM A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION
More informationLosseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-16-2014 Losseny Dosso v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-3288 LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, AKA Arturo Ramirez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-71788 Agency No. A095-733-635
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YELENA IZOTOVA CHOIN, Petitioner, No. 06-75823 v. Agency No. A75-597-079 MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. YELENA IZOTOVA
More informationRules and Regulations
42587 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 157 Tuesday, August 14, 2001 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANNA MIDI, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-1367 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board
More information