APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005
|
|
- Elaine Welch
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The American Immigration Law Foundation th Street Des Moines, IA PRACTICE ADVISORY APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005 I. Introduction June 5, 2006 By Matt Adams, Stephen Manning and Beth Werlin Individuals who reentered the United States without being admitted and now are eligible for adjustment of status face various obstacles to obtaining relief. Not only are they subject to inadmissibility for entering without admission, but some would-be-applicants may be subject to permanent inadmissibility bars for having been deported or for previously having accrued more than one year of unlawful presence. Furthermore, individuals with prior removal or deportation orders may be subject to reinstatement of removal. The availability of an I-212 waiver and/or eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) may cure these problems. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals recently hampered efforts to cure inadmissibility problems in Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866 (BIA 2006). As this Practice Advisory explains, the Board s decision conflicts with congressional intent as expressed in VAWA 2005 and is an incorrect interpretation of the law. The decision also conflicts with positive case law from the Ninth Circuit. Attorneys with clients who are eligible for adjustment of status but for their illegal reentry are encouraged to challenge Matter of Torres-Garcia. This Advisory is intended to assist attorneys representing individuals with defensive applications (applications they file while in proceedings). Until the law is developed further, advocates are not advised to file affirmative applications for adjustment of status for clients who illegally Matt Adams is Impact Litigation Unit Director at the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project. Stephen Manning is in private practice at the Immigrant Law Group, LLP in Portland, Oregon. Beth Werlin is the Litigation Clearinghouse Attorney at the American Immigration Law Foundation.
2 reentered. Furthermore, this Advisory is accurate as of the issue date. The caselaw is still developing and two of the cases discussed below have pending petitions for rehearing. II. Background A. Section 212(a)(9)(A), Section 212(a)(9)(C), Section 241(a)(5), Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) Matter of Torres-Garcia interprets two related sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, sections 212(a)(9)(A) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II). Although Matter of Torres-Garcia does not specifically address section 241(a)(5) (reinstatement of removal), the Board s decision implicates this provision as well. Section 212(a)(9) regulates the admissibility of individuals who have made illegal entries or had status violations. Section 212(a)(9)(A) makes individuals who were removed (or deported) inadmissible for many years after the removal. The inadmissibility period may be waived if DHS grants consent or permission to the admission. This request for permission is filed on form I-212 and is commonly referred to as I-212 consent to admission relief. The regulations at 8 C.F.R implement the consent to admission provisions. Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) makes permanently inadmissible individuals who were removed from the United States and then, post-removal, made an illegal entry. After ten years, an individual may seek to waive the permanent inadmissibility by asking DHS for consent for admission. It is unclear at this time how an individual can seek this consent for admission. Section 241(a)(5) is the reinstatement provision. It permits the government to reinstate a prior removal order if the person reenters the United States. It also makes the individual ineligible for any relief under the immigration laws. Although Matter of Torres-Garcia (discussed below) involved a person who had previously been ordered removed, individuals who illegally reenter the United States, but who never were ordered removed or deported also face bars to adjustment of status. Section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) makes inadmissible any person who was unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year, departs, and then illegally reenters or attempts to reenter the United States. In Torres- Garcia, the Board noted this related issue but did not address it because it had not been briefed by the parties. Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. at 870 n4. B. Circuit Court Decisions Addressing Adjustment for Individuals Who Illegally Reentered Prior to the BIA s decision in Matter of Torres-Garcia, three circuit courts the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth already had issued decisions interpreting the provisions described above and deciding when and if individuals who illegally reentered can apply for an I-212 waiver and adjustment of status. i. Previously Removed Individuals 2
3 The Ninth Circuit found that under 8 C.F.R (e) and (i), a person may cure a prior unlawful reentry if he or she receives permission to reapply that is an approval of an I-212. Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004). The Perez-Gonzalez court pointed out that the regulations contain explicit language that the relief will be given retroactive effect, thus curing nunc pro tunc the unlawful reentry. The court found that such consent (the approved I- 212) would overcome a finding of inadmissibility under section 212(a)(9)(C) of the INA, even if ten years had not passed prior to the person seeking consent to reapply. Consequently, the Court ruled that the government may not reinstate a prior order of removal under section 241(a)(5) if a person has already applied for adjustment of status along with consent to reapply on form I-212 (at least, not until any such application is properly adjudicated and denied). Importantly, to avoid section 241(a)(5) s reinstatement bar, the I-212 application must have been filed before the government initiates reinstatement proceedings. Cf. Padilla v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2003) (Note: this is a different case than the Tenth Circuit Padilla decision discussed below.). The Tenth Circuit rejected Perez Gonzalez s reasoning in Berrum-Garcia v. Comfort, 390 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2004). The Tenth Circuit held that individuals are not permitted to submit an I- 212 after unlawfully reentering the United States. In a related case, Mortera Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2005) (discussed below), the Fifth Circuit indicated that it would follow Berrum-Garcia if presented with the same facts. ii. Individuals Who Departed Without a Removal Order Persons who have been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year and unlawfully reenter are subject to the bar at section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I) of the Act. However, if they never have been ordered removed, they do not qualify to apply for consent to reapply (I- 212). Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit expanded the reasoning of Perez-Gonzalez so that individuals who have never been ordered deported or removed may adjust their status if they are eligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i). 1 Acosta v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2006) (pet. for reh g filed May 24, 2006). The court held that section 245(i) trumps section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). The Tenth Circuit reached the same result in Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir 2005) (pet. for reh g en banc filed Jan. 4, 2006). The circuit court distinguished Berrum on the ground that Petitioner Berrum had reentered the United States in defiance of a prior removal order and thus was subject to the reinstatement provision, section 241(a)(5), which bars relief. The Fifth Circuit, however, rejected the argument that individuals who attempt to reenter after having been physically present for more than one year are eligible to adjust under section 245(i). Mortera Cruz v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2005). 1 Although this cases involves adjustment of status under INA 245(i), the court s reasoning may help individuals who are eligible for VAWA adjustment. 3
4 **The government has petitioned for rehearing en banc in Padilla-Caldera in the Tenth Circuit and panel rehearing in Acosta in the Ninth Circuit.** C. Matter of Torres-Garcia On January 26, 2006, the BIA held that an individual who illegally reentered after previously being removed was inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) and could not benefit from an I-212 waiver from within the United States. Matter of Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. 866 (BIA 2006). Consequently, the Board found that the respondent was ineligible for adjustment of status. The Board rejected the reasoning of Perez-Gonzalez and held that the Ninth Circuit erred in relying on the regulatory language found at 8 C.F.R [W]e conclude that 8 C.F.R , which implements statutory provisions that were repealed by the IIRIRA, cannot reasonably be construed as implementing the provision for consent to reapply for admission at section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii). Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. at The BIA reasoned that the statutory language at section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii) of the INA makes clear that any consent to reapply may not be obtained until at least ten years after the date of departure from the United States. The Board thought it dispositive that the regulations at issue, 8 C.F.R , were issued prior to the 1996 changes and, in the Board s view, did not purport to implement anything in section 212(a)(9), which was introduced to the INA in 1996 by IRRIRA. Torres-Garcia, 23 I. & N. Dec. at Given that the regulatory language at 8 C.F.R did not appear to encompass the new statutory language implemented by IIRIRA, the Board rejected the explicit language of the regulation. III. Challenges to Torres-Garcia A. Legal Arguments Matter of Torres-Garcia is fundamentally flawed because its reasoning is based on the erroneous premise that the section 212 regulations are inapposite to determining the meaning of section 212(a)(9) of the INA or Congressional intent. As Congress recently said, the regulations remain intact and continue to govern the adjudication of consent for admission claims. On January 5, 2006, Congress enacted the VAWA 2005 reauthorization bill. Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No , 119 Stat (VAWA 2005). Section 813(b) of VAWA 2005 states: 2 Despite the Board's rejection of Perez-Gonzalez, the holding of Perez-Gonzalez should continue to govern in the Ninth Circuit until overruled or modified by the circuit court. Mesa Verde Construction Co. v. No. Cal. District Council of Laborers, 861 F.2d 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (prior judicial construction of unambiguous statute controls over contrary agency interpretation). 4
5 813(b) DISCRETION TO CONSENT TO AN ALIEN S REAPPLICATION FOR ADMISSION. (1) IN GENERAL. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State shall continue to have discretion to consent to an alien s reapplication for admission after a previous order of removal, deportation, or exclusion. (2) SENSE OF CONGRESS. It is the sense of Congress that the officials described in paragraph (1) should particularly consider exercising this authority in cases under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, cases involving nonimmigrants described in subparagraph (T) or (U) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)), and relief under section 240A(b)(2) or 244(a)(3) of such Act (as in effect on March 31, 1997) pursuant to regulations under section of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations. 119 Stat. at Importantly, the Board in Matter of Torres-Garcia makes no mention of VAWA 2005, Congress most recent understanding of the INA. 3 As such, to the extent Matter of Torres- Garcia does not address nor conform to this statutory language, the Board s decision must be reconsidered and rejected. In challenging the BIA s holding in Matter of Torres-Garcia, advocates should focus on the language of section 813(b) of VAWA, including the following: The statute s command that various immigration officials shall continue to have authority to decide I-212 consent cases underscores the continuing vitality of 8 C.F.R It confirms that 8 C.F.R is not an outdated regulation that fails to adequately implement the changes brought about by IIRIRA. The central rationale of Matter of Torres-Garcia, i.e., that the regulations do not implement the consent to reapply for admission under section 212(a)(9)(C)(ii) of the INA, is completely undermined by section 813(b) of VAWA (Indeed, 8 C.F.R was modified on two separate occasions after IIRIRA in order to implement other statutory changes.) With VAWA 2005, the statute explicitly confirms that 8 C.F.R continues to be good law. The language specifies that not only the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State have authority to grant consent, but that the Attorney General also has authority to grant consent. This necessarily demonstrates that persons can obtain an I-212 if they are seeking admission by consular processing (Department of State), affirmative adjustment applications (Department of Homeland Security), and in removal proceedings (Attorney General). This provides support for the argument that consent may be obtained inside the 3 The Board issued Matter of Torres-Garcia on January 26, VAWA 2005 was enacted three weeks earlier on January 5, Given the proximity of the enactment Act and the issuance of the decision, it is unlikely that either party submitted briefs addressing VAWA
6 United States. Matter of Torres-Garcia, contrary to 8 C.F.R , indicates that consent must be obtained outside the country. The language states that immigration officials shall continue to have authority to grant such applications. This makes clear that such authority is nothing new, and thus, prior court decisions which did not recognize such authority were utilizing too narrow of an interpretation. Therefore, the adverse decisions in the Fifth and Tenth Circuits should not be afforded authoritative weight and may be reconsidered and overruled. B. Strategic Considerations i. Defensive Applications In defensive applications, those applications filed in removal proceedings, advocates should make all available arguments and preserve the record for appeal. As case law develops, these arguments may need to be modified. If you have a case which raises these legal issues and is presently before the Board or a Circuit Court, please let us know by ing clearinghouse@ailf.org. If the client is in removal proceedings: Advocates should make all available arguments and preserve the record for appeal. Given that the BIA failed to address section 813(b) of VAWA 2005, the Board s decision in Matter of Torres-Garcia is vulnerable to attack. However, advocates should be aware that unless and until the BIA reconsiders and reverses its decision, most immigration judges and the BIA likely will follow Matter of Torres-Garcia. Individuals may need to prepare for challenging the Board s decision in a petition for review in the court appeals. If the client is in the court of appeals: The arguments described above may be presented directly to the court of appeals in a petition for review of the BIA s decision. Petitioners in the Fifth and Tenth circuits, where there is adverse caselaw, may ask the court to reconsider their decisions in light of VAWA Contact clearinghouse@ailf.org if you have such a case. ii. Affirmative Applications As this Practice Advisory suggests, this area of the law is fluid and evolving. Once the law has stabilized and the national organizations coordinating this effort have communicated with DHS about amending its policies to reflect Congressional intent, affirmative applications may be recommended. Attempting to file for I-212s before this area is settled may result in your client s swift removal. For those persons who are contemplating filing affirmative applications for adjustment of status along with applications for permission to reapply on I-212, it is important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case challenging the retroactivity of the reinstatement provision at section 241(a)(5) of INA. Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, Case No It is likely that the decision will have an impact on any analysis. The decision should be issued by 6
7 the end of June As a result, advocates should wait to determine the impact of such a decision. 7
AILA 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 informationOne Time Too Many: In re Briones and the BIA s Rigid Interpretation of the LIFE Act and its Dire Consequences for Undocumented Reentry
One Time Too Many: In re Briones and the BIA s Rigid Interpretation of the LIFE Act and its Dire Consequences for Undocumented Reentry LAUREN GONZÁLEZ* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 534 II. THE
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 informationAMICUS PRACTICE POINTER: HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY ADVOCATE FOR 245(I) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER THE NINTH CIRCUIT S HOLDING IN GARFIAS- RODRIGUEZ
AMICUS PRACTICE POINTER: HOW TO SUCCESSFULLY ADVOCATE FOR 245(I) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER THE NINTH CIRCUIT S HOLDING IN GARFIAS- RODRIGUEZ BY AILA AMICUS COMMITTEE 1 DECEMBER 19, 2013 I. INTRODUCTION
More informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION DADA V. MUKASEY Q &A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND APPROACHES TO CONSIDER June 17, 2008 The Supreme Court s decision in Dada v. Mukasey, No. 06-1181, 554 U.S. (June 16, 2008),
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 informationAsylum in the Context of Expedited Removal
Asylum in the Context of Expedited Removal Asylum Chat Outline 5/21/2014 AGENDA 12:00pm 12:45pm Interactive Presentation 12:45 1:30pm...Open Chat Disclaimer: Go ahead and roll your eyes. All material below
More informationTHE CONVICTION FINALITY REQUIREMENT IN LIGHT OF MATTER OF J.M. ACOSTA
PRACTICE ADVISORY THE CONVICTION FINALITY REQUIREMENT IN LIGHT OF MATTER OF J.M. ACOSTA: THE LAW CIRCUIT-BY-CIRCUIT AND PRACTICE STRATEGIES BEFORE THE AGENCY AND FEDERAL COURTS January 24, 2019 The authors
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. FRANCISCO JAVIER GARFIAS-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,
No. 09-72603 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCISCO JAVIER GARFIAS-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
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 informationCRS Report for Congress
Order Code RL33410 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Immigration Litigation Reform May 8, 2006 Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congressional Research
More informationImmigrant Defense Project
Immigrant Defense Project 3 West 29 th Street, Suite 803, New York, NY 10001 Tel: 212.725.6422 Fax: 800.391.5713 www.immigrantdefenseproject.org PRACTICE ADVISORY Conviction Finality Requirement: The Impact
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 informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION JUDICIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS OF THE REAL ID ACT Practice Advisory 1 By: AILF Legal Action Center June 7, 2005 The REAL ID Act of 2005 was signed into law on May 11, 2005
More information6/8/2007 9:42:17 AM SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XL:4
Immigration Law Nunc Pro Tunc Relief Unavailable Where Erroneous Legal Interpretation Rendered Alien Ineligible for Deportation Waiver Pereira v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2005) An alien convicted
More informationU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS OFFICE In the Matter of: Jane SMITH, Appellant / Petitioner File No. A### ### ### U Nonimmigrant Petition
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 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 informationPRACTICE ADVISORY 1 December 16, 2011
PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 December 16, 2011 IMPLICATIONS OF JUDULANG V. HOLDER FOR LPRs SEEKING 212(c) RELIEF AND FOR OTHER INDIVIDUALS CHALLENGING ARBITRARY AGENCY POLICIES INTRODUCTION Before December 12,
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 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 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 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
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 informationBIA AFFIRMANCE WITHOUT OPINION : WHAT FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGES REMAIN? Practice Advisory 1. By Mary Kenney April 27, 2005
BIA AFFIRMANCE WITHOUT OPINION : WHAT FEDERAL COURT CHALLENGES REMAIN? Practice Advisory 1 By Mary Kenney April 27, 2005 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) implemented its current affirmance without
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 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 informationU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Department of Homeland Secu rity U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Administrative Appeals Office 20 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W.. MS 2090 Washi ngton. DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
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 informationPRACTICE ALERT. Manny Vargas, Dan Kesselbrenner, and Andrew Wachtenheim. July 1, Written By:
PRACTICE ALERT InVoisine v. United States, Supreme Court creates new uncertainty over whether INA referenced crime of violence definition excludes reckless conduct July 1, 2016 Written By: Manny Vargas,
More informationProcedures Further Implementing the Annual Limitation on Suspension of. AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 12/05/2017 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2017-26104, and on FDsys.gov BILLING CODE: 4410-30 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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 informationARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES.
ARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES Shuting Chen ABSTRACT This Article underscores the challenges faced by undocumented
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RAUL PADILLA-RAMIREZ,
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 informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Enrique Garcia Mendoza, Agency Case No.
Case No. 13-9531 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Enrique Garcia Mendoza, Agency Case No. A200-582-682, v. Petitioner, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States,
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 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 informationVoluntary Departure: When the Consequences of Failing to Depart Should and Should Not Apply
PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 Updated December 21, 2017 Voluntary Departure: When the Consequences of Failing to Depart Should and Should Not Apply There is a common perception that a grant of voluntary departure
More informationAdministrative Closure Post-Castro-Tum. Practice Advisory 1. June 14, 2018
Administrative Closure Post-Castro-Tum Practice Advisory 1 June 14, 2018 I. Introduction Administrative closure is a docket-management mechanism that immigration judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration
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 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 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 informationconviction where the record of conviction contains no finding of a prior conviction
PRACTICE ADVISORY: MULTIPLE DRUG POSSESSION CASES AFTER CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER June 21, 2010 In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, No. 09-60, 560 U.S. (June 14, 2010) (hereinafter Carachuri), the Supreme
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CRISTIAN FUNES, v. Petitioner,
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 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 informationChapter 4 Conviction and Sentence for Immigration Purposes
Chapter 4 Conviction and Sentence for Immigration Purposes 4.1 Conviction for Immigration Purposes 4-2 A. Conviction Defined B. Conviction without Formal Judgment C. Finality of Conviction 4.2 Effect of
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
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 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 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 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 informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA In the Matter of: Marcos-Victor Ordaz-Gonzalez Respondent. A077-076-421 Removal
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIMANE TALL, Petitioner, No. 06-72804 v. Agency No. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney A93-008-485 General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition
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 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 informationSAMPLE. Motion to Reconsider with the BIA
SAMPLE Motion to Reconsider with the BIA This motion is not a substitute for independent legal advice supplied by a lawyer familiar with a client s case. It is not intended as, nor does it constitute,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States HUMBERTO FERNANDEZ-VARGAS, v. Petitioner, ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationOneil Bansie v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-15-2014 Oneil Bansie v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No.
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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0331p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AMWAR I. SAQR, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 17-1559 In the Supreme Court of the United States LEONARDO VILLEGAS-SARABIA, PETITIONER v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
More informationScreening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief. By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1
Screening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief Background Information By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1 When assisting a client with renewing their Temporary
More informationGuidance for Processing Reasonable Fear, Credible Fear, Asylum, and Refugee Claims in Accordance with Matter of A-B-
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Washington, DC 20529-2100 July 11, 2018 PM-602-0162 Policy Memorandum SUBJECT: Guidance for Processing Reasonable Fear, Credible Fear, Asylum, and Refugee Claims
More informationThis March, the Supreme Court issued
How Arkansas Convictions are Treated for Immigration Purposes Elizabeth L. Young Assistant Professor This March, the Supreme Court issued a potentially ground-breaking case in Padilla v. Kentucky. 1 Aside
More informationEnhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and EB-1. AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/15/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-00478, and on FDsys.gov 9111-97 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY 1 October 19, 2004
PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 October 19, 2004 ST. CYR REGULATIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR APPLICANTS WHO ARE BARRED FROM SECTION 212(c) RELIEF UNDER THE REGULATIONS By Beth Werlin 2 This practice advisory is the fifth
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 informationOkado v. Atty Gen USA
2005 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2005 Okado v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-3698 Follow this and
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 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 informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. (Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2008) Docket No ag
05-4614-ag Grant v. DHS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2007 (Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2008) Docket No. 05-4614-ag OTIS GRANT, Petitioner, UNITED
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 information1 of 20 1/15/16, 8:07 PM
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Friday, January 15, 216)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 268-284] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No:
More informationPRACTICE ADVISORY 1. February 20, 2017
PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 February 20, 2017 EXPEDITED REMOVAL: WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 13767, BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS (ISSUED ON JANUARY 25, 2017) Expedited
More informationCRS Report for Congress
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22413 March 29, 2006 Summary Criminalizing Unlawful Presence: Selected Issues Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division
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 informationAMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION. Protecting Your Client When Prior Counsel Was Ineffective Expanding the Bounds of Lozada
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAW FOUNDATION PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 April 2002 Protecting Your Client When Prior Counsel Was Ineffective Expanding the Bounds of Lozada By Beth Werlin, NAPIL Fellow, AILF Respondents
More informationupreme eurt of iltnitel tatee
No. 10-517 upreme eurt of iltnitel tatee INDAH ESTALITA, Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
More informationREOPENING A CASE FOR THE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT IN LIGHT OF FRANCO- GONZALEZ V. HOLDER 1 (November 2015)
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 informationKwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-13-2015 Kwame Dwumaah v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationTowards Comprehensive Immigration Reform: A Consensus Within Emerging Trends
Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 1, Fall 2010, Issue 1 Article 1 Towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform: A Consensus Within Emerging Trends Mark R. von Sternberg Follow this and additional
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 04-1376 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- HUMBERTO FERNANDEZ-VARGAS,
More informationLEGAL ALERT: ONE DAY TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS ACT PASSES IN NY STATE
LEGAL ALERT: ONE DAY TO PROTECT NEW YORKERS ACT PASSES IN NY STATE Today, One Day to Protect New Yorkers passed in the New York State budget as Part OO (page 50) of the Public Protection and General Government
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 informationDACA LEGAL SERVICES TOOLKIT Practice Advisory 6 of 7
DACA LEGAL SERVICES TOOLKIT Practice Advisory 6 of 7 DEFENSES FOR DACA RECIPIENTS FACING ENFORCEMENT OR REMOVAL (DEPORTATION) PROCEEDINGS Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law 256 S. Occidental
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 informationGaffar v. Atty Gen USA
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-22-2009 Gaffar v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4105 Follow this and
More informationMarch 7, Comments Concerning Proposed Regulations Regarding Restrictions on Legal Assistance to Aliens (79 Fed. Reg (Feb.
Sent by email to 1626rulemaking@lsc.gov Stefanie K. Davis, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Legal Services Corporation 3333 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20007 March 7, 2014 RE: Comments Concerning Proposed
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 informationBond Hearings for Immigrants Subject to Prolonged Immigration Detention in the Ninth Circuit
Bond Hearings for Immigrants Subject to Prolonged Immigration Detention in the Ninth Circuit Michael Kaufman, ACLU of Southern California Michael Tan, ACLU Immigrants Rights Project December 2015 This
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 informationThe Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law
The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law January 16, 2015 Raha Jorjani, Office of the Alameda County Public Defender Agenda Overview of Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions. Post-Conviction
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 informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 02-1446 GUSTAVO GOMEZ-DIAZ, v. Petitioner, JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration
More informationBILLING CODE: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 8 CFR Parts 214 and 248
BILLING CODE: 9111-97 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 8 CFR Parts 214 and 248 [CIS No. 2429-07; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2007-0056] RIN 1615-AB64 Period of Admission
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 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 informationPRACTICE ADVISORY 1. Suggested Strategies for Remedying Missed Petition for Review Deadlines or Filings in the Wrong Court
PRACTICE ADVISORY 1 Suggested Strategies for Remedying Missed Petition for Review Deadlines or Filings in the Wrong Court I. Introduction By Trina Realmuto 2 April 20, 2005 A petition for review of a final
More information