Loading...
   Home   >BIA Decisions>Volume 25

Volume 25

BIA Decisions - Volume 25 I&N Dec.

(ID 3719)

Matter of Le, 25 I&N Dec. 541 (BIA 2011)

A derivative child of a nonimmigrant fiancé(e) visa holder under section 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(K)(iii) (2006), is not ineligible for adjustment of status simply by virtue of having turned 21 after admission to the United States on a K-2 nonimmigrant visa.

(ID 3718)

Matter of N-C-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 535 (BIA 2011)

To be eligible for late initial registration for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”), an applicant filing as the “child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant” must establish only that he or she qualified as a “child” at the time of the initial registration period, not at the time the application was filed.

(ID 3717)

Matter of N-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011)

(1) Opposition to state corruption may, in some circumstances, constitute the expression of political opinion or give a persecutor a reason to impute such an opinion to an alien.

(2) For claims arising under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Division B of Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, a showing of retaliation for opposing governmental corruption is, by itself, insufficient to establish eligibility for relief; instead, an alien must persuade the trier of fact that his or her actual or imputed anticorruption belief (or other protected trait) was one central reason for the harm.

(3) In making the nexus determination, an Immigration Judge should consider: (1) whether and to what extent the alien engaged in activities that could be perceived as expressions of anticorruption beliefs; (2) any direct or circumstantial evidence that the persecutor was motivated by the alien’s actual or perceived anticorruption beliefs; and (3) any evidence regarding the pervasiveness of corruption within the governing regime.

(ID 3716)

Matter of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 520 (BIA 2011)

(1) Section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) (2006), does not limit the prosecutorial discretion of the Department of Homeland Security to place arriving aliens in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (2006).

(2) The fact that an Immigration Judge has no jurisdiction over applications for adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 2, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, as amended, does not negate his or her jurisdiction over the removal proceedings of arriving Cuban aliens under section 240 of the Act.

(ID 3715)

Matter of ECHEVERRIA, 25 I&N Dec. 512 (BIA 2011)

(1) A late initial registrant for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) under 8 C.F.R. § 1244.2(f)(2) (2011) must independently meet all initial registration requirements of TPS.

(2) One of the initial registration requirements applicable to a late initial registrant is that the applicant must be a national (or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, a habitual resident) of a foreign state currently designated for TPS by the Attorney General.

(ID 3714)

Matter of STRYDOM, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011)

A conviction under section 21-3843(a)(1) of the Kansas Statutes Annotated for violation of the no-contact provision of a protection order issued pursuant to section 60-3106 of the Kansas Protection from Abuse Act constitutes a deportable offense under section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) (2006).

(ID 3713)

Matter of A-G-G-, 25 I&N Dec. 486 (BIA 2011)

(1) Pursuant to section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) (2006), and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.15 (2011), the framework for making firm resettlement determinations focuses exclusively on the existence of an offer of permanent resettlement and allows for the consideration of direct and indirect evidence.

(2) The Department of Homeland Security has the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement by presenting direct evidence of an alien’s ability to stay in a country indefinitely; when direct evidence is unavailable, indirect evidence may be used if it has a sufficient level of clarity and force to establish that the alien is able to permanently reside in the country.

(3) An asylum applicant can rebut evidence of a firm resettlement offer by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that such an offer has not been made or that the applicant’s circumstances would render him or her ineligible for such an offer
of permanent residence.

(4) Evidence that permanent resident status is available to an alien under the law of the country of proposed resettlement may be sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement, and a determination of firm resettlement is not contingent on whether the alien applies for that status. Matter of Soleimani, 20 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 1989), modified.

(ID 3712)

Matter of Dorman, 25 I&N Dec. 485 (A.G. 2011)

The Attorney General vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and remanded for the Board to make specific findings with regard to the respondent’s eligibility for cancellation of removal.

(ID 3711)

Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011)

(1) Aliens in immigration proceedings are presumed to be competent and, if there are no indicia of incompetency in a case, no further inquiry regarding competency is required.

(2) The test for determining whether an alien is competent to participate in immigration proceedings is whether he or she has a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, can consult with the attorney or representative if there is one, and has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

(3) If there are indicia of incompetency, the Immigration Judge must make further inquiry to determine whether the alien is competent for purposes of immigration proceedings.

(4) If the alien lacks sufficient competency to proceed, the Immigration Judge will evaluate appropriate safeguards.

(5) Immigration Judges must articulate the rationale for their decisions regarding competency issues.

( ID 3710)

Matter of CUBOR, 25 I&N Dec. 470 (BIA 2011)

Personal service of a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) on a minor who is 14 years of age or older at the time of service is effective, and the regulations do not require that notice also be served on an adult with responsibility for the minor.

( ID 3709)

Matter of AHORTALEJO-GUZMAN, 25 I&N Dec. 465 (BIA 2011)

Evidence outside of an alien’s record of conviction may properly be considered in determining whether the alien has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude only where the conviction record itself does not conclusively demonstrate whether the alien was convicted of engaging in conduct that constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), followed

(ID 3708)

Matter of D-R-, 25 I&N Dec. 445 (BIA 2011)

(1) The respondent’s deliberate omission from his refugee application that he was a special police officer during the Bosnian War, during which time he served in an entity that was part of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Srpska, could have affected or influenced the Government’s decision whether to grant him refugee status and was therefore a willful misrepresentation of a material fact.

(2) The respondent is removable under section 237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(D) (2006), where the totality of the record supported the conclusion that he assisted in the extrajudicial killing of 200 Bosnian Muslims that his unit was involved in capturing, including evidence of his command responsibility, his presence, his platoon’s active participation, and the finding that he must have been aware that many other Bosnian Muslims who were similarly situated had been executed nearby several days earlier.

(3) An Immigration Judge may make reasonable inferences from direct and circumstantial evidence in the record as a whole and is not required to accept a respondent’s account where other plausible views of the evidence are supported by the record.

(4) An expert witness is broadly defined as one who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and who has specialized knowledge that will assist the Immigration Judge to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

(ID 3707)

Matter of SESAY, 25 I&N Dec. 431 (BIA 2011)

(1) Under section 245(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2006), a fiancé(e) visa holder can only adjust status based on the marriage to the fiancé(e) petitioner. Matter of Zampetis, 14 I&N Dec. 125 (Reg. Comm’r 1972), superseded.

(2) A fiancé(e) visa holder whose bona fide marriage to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner is more than 2 years old at the time the adjustment application is adjudicated is not subject to the provisions for conditional resident status under section 216 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a (2006).

(3) A fiancé(e) visa holder satisfies the visa eligibility and visa availability requirements of section 245(a) of the Act on the date he or she is admitted to the United States as a K-1 nonimmigrant, provided that the fiancé(e) enters into a bona fide marriage with the fiancé(e) petitioner within 90 days.

(4) A fiancé(e) visa holder may be granted adjustment of status under sections 245(a) and (d) of the Act, even if the marriage to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner does not exist at the time that the adjustment application is adjudicated, if the applicant can demonstrate that he or she entered into a bona fide marriage within the 90-day period to the fiancé(e) visa petitioner.

(ID 3706)

Matter of VO, 25 I&N Dec. 426 (BIA 2011)

Where the substantive offense underlying an alien’s conviction for an attempt offense is a crime involving moral turpitude, the alien is considered to have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for purposes of section 237(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A) (2006), even though that section makes no reference to attempt offenses.

(ID 3705)

Matter of GUEVARA ALFARO, 25 I&N Dec. 417 (BIA 2011)

(1) Any intentional sexual conduct by an adult with a child involves moral turpitude, as long as the perpetrator knew or should have known that the victim was under the age of 16. Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), followed. Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007), not followed.

(2) Absent otherwise controlling authority, Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals are bound to apply all three steps of the procedural framework set forth by the Attorney General in Matter of Silva-Trevino for determining whether
a particular offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

(ID 3704)

Matter of NELSON, 25 I&N Dec. 410 (BIA 2011)

Once an alien has been convicted of an offense that stops the accrual of the 7-year period of continuous residence required for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) (2006), section 240A(d)(1) of the Act does not permit such residence to restart simply because the alien has departed from, and returned to, the United States.

(ID 3703)

Matter of ALYAZJI, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011)

In general, an alien’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude triggers removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006), only if the alien committed the crime within 5 years after the date of the admission by virtue of which he or she was then present in the United States. Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005), overruled in part.

(ID 3702)

Matter of SOSA, 25 I&N Dec. 391 (BIA 2010)

(1) A grant of Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) waives certain grounds of inadmissibility or deportability solely for the limited purpose of permitting an alien to remain and work temporarily in the United States for the period of time that TPS is effective.

(2) It is not proper to terminate an alien’s removal proceedings based on a grant of TPS.

(ID 3701)

Matter of SORAM, 25 I&N Dec. 378 (BIA 2010)

The crime of unreasonably placing a child in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child’s life or health in violation of section 18-6-401(1)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes is categorically a crime of child abuse under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2006), even though no proof of actual harm or injury to the child is required. Matter of Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 2008), clarified.

(ID 3700)

Matter of CHAWATHE, 25 I&N Dec. 369 (AAO 2010)

(1) For purposes of establishing the requisite continuous residence in naturalization proceedings pursuant to section 316(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1427(b) (2006), a publicly held corporation may be deemed an “American firm
or corporation” if the applicant establishes that the corporation is both incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock exchange markets.

(2) When an applicant’s employer is a publicly held corporation that is incorporated in the United States and trades its stock exclusively on U.S. stock markets, the applicant need not demonstrate the nationality of the corporation by establishing the nationality of those persons who own more than 51% of the stock of that firm. Matter of Warrach, 17 I&N Dec. 285, 286-87 (Reg. Comm’r 1979), clarified.

(3) In most administrative immigration proceedings, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence that he or she is eligible for the benefit sought.

(4) Even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is “more likely than not” or “probably” true, the applicant has satisfied the standard of proof. Matter of E-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 77, 79-80 (Comm’r 1989), followed.

(5) If the director can articulate a material doubt, it is appropriate for the director to either request additional evidence or, if that doubt leads the director to believe that the claim is probably not true, deny the application or petition.

(ID 3699)

Matter of AL WAZZAN, 25 I&N Dec.25 I&N Dec.  359 (AAO 2010)

(1) Although section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2000), provides that an employment-based immigrant visa petition shall remain valid with respect to a new job if the beneficiary’s application for adjustment of status has been filed and remained unadjudicated for 180 days, the petition must have been “valid” to begin with if it is to “remain valid with respect to a new job.”

(2) To be considered “valid” in harmony with related provisions and with the statute as a whole, the petition must have been filed for an alien who is “entitled” to the requested classification and that petition must have been “approved” by a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) officer pursuant to his or her authority under the Act.

(3) Congress specifically granted USCIS the sole authority to make eligibility determinations for immigrant visa petitions under section 204(b) of the Act. (4) An unadjudicated immigrant visa petition is not made “valid” merely through the act of filing the petition with USCIS or through the passage of 180 days.

(ID 3698)

Matter of GRUENANGERL, 25 I&N Dec. 351 (BIA 2010)

The crime of bribery of a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A) (2006) is not an offense “relating to” commercial bribery and is therefore not an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(R) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) (2006).

(ID 3697)

Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA Dec. 2010)

The “one central reason” standard that applies to asylum applications pursuant to section 208(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (2006), also applies to applications for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2006).

(ID 3696)

Matter of ANYELO, 25 I&N Dec. 337 (BIA 2010)

The holding in Matter of G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2001), as to the notice required to authorize the entry of an in absentia order, is applicable to cases arising in the Eleventh Circuit. Dominguez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 284 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2002), distinguished.

(ID 3695)

Matter of GARCIA, 25 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 2010)

A conviction for a single crime involving moral turpitude that qualifies as a petty offense is not for an “offense referred to in section 212(a)(2)” of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) (2006), for purposes of triggering the “stop-time” rule in section 240A(d)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) (2006), even if it renders the alien removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(i) (2006).

(ID 3694)

Matter of LEGASPI, 25 I&N Dec. 328 (BIA 2010)

An alien is not independently “grandfathered” for purposes of adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) (2006), simply by virtue of marriage to another alien who is “grandfathered” under section 245(i) as the result of having been a derivative beneficiary of a visa petition.

(ID 3693)

Matter of X-M-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 322 (BIA 2010)

(1) A determination that an alien has filed a frivolous application for asylum, pursuant to section 208(d)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2006), can be made in the absence of a final decision on the merits of the asylum application.

(2) Withdrawal of an alien’s asylum application after the required warnings and safeguards have been provided does not preclude a finding that the application is frivolous.

(ID 3692)

Matter of CASILLAS-TOPETE, 25 I&N Dec. 317 (BIA 2010)

An alien is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as one who was inadmissible at the time of entry or adjustment of status pursuant to section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) (2006), where an appropriate immigration official knows or has reason to believe that the alien is a trafficker in controlled substances at the time of admission to the United States. Matter of Rocha, 20 I&N Dec. 944 (BIA 1995), modified.

(ID 3691)

Matter of PEDROZA, 25 I&N Dec. 312 (BIA 2010)

An alien’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude does not render him ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 40A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2006), if his crime is punishable by imprisonment for
a period of less than a year and qualifies for the petty offense exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006). Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010), followed.

(ID 3690)

Matter of CORTEZ , 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010)

(1) An alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed has been convicted of an offense “described under” section 237(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) (2006), and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2006), regardless of the alien’s eligibility for the petty offense exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006). Matter of Almanza, 24 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2009), clarified. Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008); Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2007); and Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I&N Dec. 590 (BIA 2003), explained.


(2) In determining which offenses are “described under” sections 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), and 237(a)(3) of the Act for purposes of section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, only language specifically pertaining to the criminal offense, such as the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed, should be considered.


(3) The respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for welfare fraud in violation of section 10980(c)(2) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code rendered her ineligible for
cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, because it was for a crime involving moral turpitude for which she could have been sentenced to a year
in county jail and was therefore for an offense “described under” section 237(a)(2) of the Act.

(ID 3689)

Matter of REZA-Murillo, 25 I&N Dec. 296 (BIA 2010)

A grant of Family Unity Program benefits does not constitute an “admission” to the United States under section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), for purposes of establishing that an alien has accrued the requisite 7-year period of continuous residence after having been “admitted in any status” to be eligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.§ 1229b(a)(2) (2006).

(ID 3688)

Matter of QUILANTAN, 25 I&N Dec.25 I&N Dec.  285 (BIA 2010)

For purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006), an alien seeking to show that he or she has been “admitted” to the United States pursuant to section 101(a)(13)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(A) (2006), need only prove procedural regularity in his or her entry, which does not require the alien to be questioned by immigration authorities or be admitted in a particular status. Matter of Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980), reaffirmed.

(ID 3687)

Matter of VELASQUEZ, 25 I&N Dec. 278 (BIA 2010)

The misdemeanor offense of assault and battery against a family or household member in violation of section 18.2-57.2(A) of the Virginia Code Annotated is not categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006) and therefore not categorically a crime of domestic violence within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2006).

(ID 3686)

Matter of SANCHEZ-CORNEJO, 25 I&N Dec. 273 (BIA 2010)

The offense of delivery of a simulated controlled substance in violation of Texas law is not an aggravated felony, as defined by section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) (2006), but it is a violation of a law relating to a controlled substance under former section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i) (1994).

(ID 3685)

Matter of GARCIA ARREOLA, 25 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2010)

Section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (2006), requires mandatory detention of a criminal alien only if he or she is released from non-DHS custody after the expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules (“TPCR”) and only where there has been a post-TPCR release that is directly tied to the basis for detention under sections 236(c)(1)(A)–(D) of the Act. Matter of Saysana, 24 I&N Dec. 602 (BIA 2008), overruled; Matter of Adeniji, 22 I&N Dec. 1102 (BIA 1999), modified.

(ID 3684)

Matter of INTERIANO-ROSA, 25 I&N Dec. 264 (BIA 2010)

When an application for relief is timely filed but supporting documents are not submitted within the time established, the Immigration Judge may deem the opportunity to file the documents to be waived but may not deem the application itself abandoned.

(ID 3683)

Matter of CASTILLO-PADILLA, 25 I&N Dec. 257 (BIA 2010)

(1) Conditional parole under section 236(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(B) (2006), is a distinct and different procedure from parole under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) (2006).

(2) An alien who was released from custody on conditional parole pursuant to section 236(a)(2)(B) of the Act has not been “paroled into the United States” for purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) (2006).

(ID 3682)

Matter of MENDEZ-ORELLANA, 25 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2010)

(1) In removal proceedings, the antique firearm exception in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) (2006) is an affirmative defense that must be sufficiently raised by an alien charged under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) (2006), as an alien who has been convicted of an offense involving a firearm.

(2) Where the Department of Homeland Security has presented evidence that an alien has been convicted of an offense involving a firearm, it has met its burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence of deportability, and the burden then shifts to the respondent to show that the weapon was, in fact, antique.

(ID 3681)

Matter of MONGES-Garcia, 25 I&N Dec. 246 (BIA 2010)

(1) The 90-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2010) applies to motions to reopen in absentia deportation orders for the purpose of adjusting status, whether filed before or after the 1996 promulgation of the regulations.

(2) The 5-year limitation on discretionary relief for failure to appear at deportation proceedings under former section 242B(e)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(1) (1994), is not in conflict with, and does not provide an exception to, the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).

(ID 3680)

Matter of B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2010)

(1) In making a frivolousness determination, an Immigration Judge may incorporate by reference any factual findings made in support of an adverse credibility finding, so long as the Immigration Judge makes explicit findings that the incredible aspects of the
asylum application were material and were deliberately fabricated. Matter of Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2007), clarified.

(2) In considering an asylum applicant’s explanations for inconsistencies or discrepancies, an Immigration Judge making a frivolousness determination must separately address the applicant’s explanations in the context of how they may have a bearing on the materiality and deliberateness requirements unique to that determination.

(3) When the required frivolousness warnings have been given to an asylum applicant prior to the merits hearing, the Immigration Judge is not required to afford additional warnings or to seek further explanation in regard to inconsistencies that have become obvious during the course of the hearing.

(ID 3679)

Matter of ALANIA-Martin, 25 I&N Dec. 231 (BIA 2010)

Aliens who are otherwise eligible to adjust status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006), are not subject to the unauthorized employment restrictions of sections 245(c) and the exception for such employment in section 245(k) that apply to applications for adjustment of status under section 245(a).

(ID 3678)

Matter of RICHARDSON, 25 I&N Dec. 226 (BIA 2010)

(1) The term “conspiracy” in section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U) (2006), is not limited to conspiracies that require the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators.

(2) An alien who was only convicted of conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony and is removable on the basis of that conviction under section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Act may not also be found removable for the underlying substantive offense, even though the record of conviction shows that the conspirators actually committed the substantive offense.

(ID 3677)

Matter of KOLJENOVIC, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010)

An alien who entered the United States without inspection and later obtained lawful permanent resident status through adjustment of status has “previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence” and must therefore satisfy the 7-year continuous residence requirement of section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (2006), to be eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility.

(ID 3676)

Matter of H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, 25 I&N Dec. 209 (BIA 2010)

(1) Whether an alien has presented sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution is a legal determination that is reviewed de novo by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(2) In order to determine, under de novo review, whether specific facts are sufficient to meet a legal standard such as a “well-founded fear,” the Board has authority to give different weight to the evidence from that given by the Immigration Judge.

(3) State Department reports on country conditions are highly probative evidence and are usually the best source of information on conditions in foreign nations.

(4) The evidence presented by the respondents, considered in light of State Department country reports specific to Fujian Province, failed to establish a reasonable possibility that either respondent would be subject to forced sterilization due to having two children born in the United States or would face penalties or sanctions so severe that they would rise to the level of persecution.

(ID 3675)

Matter of PEREZ RAMIREZ, 25 I&N Dec. 203 (BIA 2010)

(1) Where a criminal alien’s sentence has been modified to include a term of imprisonment following a violation of probation, the resulting sentence to confinement is considered to be part of the penalty imposed for the original underlying crime, rather than punishment for a separate offense.

(2) An alien’s misdemeanor conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury on a spouse in violation of section 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code qualifies categorically as a conviction for a “crime of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) (2006).

(ID 3674)

Matter of MILIAN-Dubon, 25 I&N Dec. 197 (BIA 2010)

In applying the modified categorical approach to assess an alien’s conviction, it is proper to consider the contents of police reports as part of the record of conviction if they were specifically incorporated into the guilty plea or were admitted by the alien during the criminal proceedings.

(ID 3673)

Matter of T-M-H- & S-W-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 193 (BIA 2010)

(1) An alien does not receive an automatic 1-year extension in which to file an asylum application following “changed circumstances” under section 208(a)(2)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (2006).

(2) Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii) (2010), the particular circumstances related to delays in filing an asylum application must be evaluated to determine whether the application was filed “within a reasonable period given those ‘changed circumstances.’”

(ID 3672)

Matter of DIAZ and LOPEZ, 25 I&N Dec. 188 (BIA 2010)

An alien who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i) (2006), is ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006). Matter of Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), reaffirmed.

(ID 3671)

Matter of MORALES, 25 I&N Dec. 186 (BIA 2010)

A stepparent who qualifies as a “parent” under section 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(2) (2006), at the time of the proceedings is a qualifying relative for purposes of establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) (2006).

(ID 3670)

Matter of ROSE, 25 I&N Dec. 181 (BIA 2010)

A conditional permanent resident under section 216(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a) (2006), who is seeking to remove the conditional basis of that status and who has timely filed the petition and appeared for the interview required under section 216(c)(1), does not need a separate section 216(c)(4) hardship waiver if the petitioning spouse died during the 2-year conditional period.

(ID 3669)

Matter of MARCAL NETO, 25 I&N Dec. 169 (BIA 2010)

Immigration Judges have authority to determine whether the validity of an alien’s approved employment-based visa petition is preserved under section 204(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j) (2006), after the alien’s change in jobs or employers. Matter of Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (BIA 2005), overruled.

(ID 3668)

Matter of GAMERO, 25 I&N Dec. 164 (BIA 2010)

(1) Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3) (2010), an Immigration Judge who grants an alien voluntary departure must advise the alien that proof of posting of a bond with the Department of Homeland Security must be submitted to the Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 days of filing an appeal and that the Board will not reinstate a period
of voluntary departure in its final order unless the alien has timely submitted sufficient proof that the required bond has been posted.


(2) Where the Immigration Judge did not provide all the advisals that are required upon granting voluntary departure and the respondent failed to submit timely proof to the Board that a voluntary departure bond had been posted, the record was remanded for the Immigration Judge to grant a new period of voluntary departure and to provide the required advisals.

(ID 3667)

Matter of KRONEGOLD, 25 I&N Dec. 157 (BIA 2009)

(1) Where disciplinary proceedings are based on a final order of suspension or disbarment, the order creates a rebuttable presumption that reciprocal disciplinary sanctions should follow, which can be rebutted only if the attorney demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the underlying disciplinary proceeding resulted in a deprivation of due process, that there was an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct, or that discipline would result in a grave injustice.

(2) In determining whether to impose reciprocal discipline on an attorney who has been suspended or disbarred by a State court, the Board of Immigration Appeals conducts a deferential review of the proceedings that resulted in the initial discipline.

(3) Where the respondent was disbarred in New York, which precludes an attorney from seeking reinstatement for 7 years, and he failed to rebut the presumption that reciprocal discipline should be imposed, his suspension from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and the Department of Homeland Security for 7 years was an appropriate sanction.

(ID 3666)

Matter of MARTINEZ-SERRANO, 25 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 2009)

(1) An alien’s conviction for aiding and abetting other aliens to evade and elude examination and inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) (2006) and 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(2) (2006) establishes that the convicted alien is removable under section 237(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)(i) (2006).

(2) Where the facts underlying the respondent’s conviction demonstrated that she knowingly assisted other aliens to enter the United States in violation of law, clear and convincing evidence established that she is removable under section 237(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Act.

(ID 3665)

Matter of PORTILLO-GUTIERREZ, 25 I&N Dec. 148 (BIA 2009)

A stepchild who meets the definition of a “child” under section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1)(B) (2006), is a qualifying relative for purposes of establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) (2006).

(ID 3664)

Matter of VELASCO, 25 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2009)

(1) The voluntary departure regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(4), Nt. (2009), which took effect on January 20, 2009, and superseded Matter of Diaz-Ruacho, 24 I&N Dec. 47 (BIA 2006), do not apply retroactively.

(2) Where an Immigration Judge granted voluntary departure prior to January 20, 2009, and the alien failed to timely post the voluntary departure bond required by section 240B(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(3) (2006), the former regulatory scheme, as interpreted in Matter of Diaz-Ruacho, remains applicable, and the penalties imposed by section 240B(d)(1) for failure to depart within the voluntary departure period do not apply.

(3) Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii), Nt., a voluntary departure order entered by an Immigration Judge on or after January 20, 2009, will not be reinstated by the Board of Immigration Appeals in its final order on appeal unless the alien provides the Board, within 30 days of filing the appeal, sufficient proof that the voluntary departure bond was timely posted with the Department of Homeland Security.

(ID 3663)

Matter of URENA, 25 I&N Dec. 140 (BIA 2009)

(1) Dangerous aliens are properly detained without bond pending the completion of proceedings to remove them from the United States.

(2) Only if an alien has established that he would not pose a danger to property or persons should an Immigration Judge decide the amount of bond necessary to ensure the alien’s presence at proceedings to remove him from the United States.

(3) Where an Immigration Judge characterized an alien seeking release from custody as a “potential” danger to the community but ordered him released upon the posting of a bond amount, the record was remanded for the Immigration Judge to clarify whether the alien met his burden of proving that his release on bond would not pose a danger to property or persons.

(ID 3662)

Matter of RAJAH, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009)

(1) In determining whether good cause exists to continue removal proceedings to await the adjudication of a pending employment-based visa petition or labor certification, an Immigration Judge should determine the alien’s place in the adjustment of status process and consider the applicable factors identified in Matter of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec.
785 (BIA 2009), and any other relevant considerations.

(2) An alien’s unopposed motion to continue ongoing removal proceedings to await the adjudication of a pending employment-based visa petition should generally be granted if approval of the visa petition would render him prima facie eligible for adjustment of status.

(3) The pendency of a labor certification is generally not sufficient to warrant a grant of a continuance.

(ID 3661)

Matter of MARTINEZ ESPINOZA, 25 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2009)

(1) An alien may be rendered inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) (2006), on the basis of a conviction for possession or use of drug paraphernalia.

(2) An alien who is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Act based on a drug paraphernalia offense may qualify for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act if that offense “relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.”

(ID 3660)

Matter of MORENO-ESCOBOSA, 25 I&N Dec. 114 (BIA 2009)

(1) The date of an alien’s plea agreement, rather than the date of sentencing, is controlling in determining whether the alien is eligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994).

(2) The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009), does not invalidate 8 C.F.R. § 1212.3 (2009), so as to preclude an alien who seeks to waive a deportation ground from establishing eligibility for section 212(c) relief.

(ID 3659)

Matter of YAURI, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009)

(1) With a narrow exception not applicable to this case, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate an arriving alien’s application for adjustment of status under 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1) (2009) and agrees that it retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the application even where an unexecuted
administratively final order of removal remains outstanding.

(2) The Board of Immigration Appeals generally lacks authority to reopen the proceedings of aliens under final orders of exclusion, deportation, or removal who seek to pursue relief over which the Board and the Immigration Judges have no jurisdiction, especially where reopening is sought simply as a mechanism to stay the final order while the collateral
matter is resolved by the agency or court having jurisdiction to do so.

(3) With regard to untimely or number-barred motions to reopen, the Board will not generally exercise its discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte for an arriving alien to pursue adjustment of status before the USCIS.

(ID 3658)

Matter of CARRILLO, 25 I&N Dec. 99 (BIA 2009)

In determining whether an alien whose status was adjusted pursuant to section 1 of the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of November 1, 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161, is removable as an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within 5 years after the alien’s “date of admission,” the admission date is calculated according to the rollback provision of section 1, rather than the date adjustment of status was granted.

(ID 3657)

Matter of GARCIA-GARCIA, 25 I&N Dec. 93 (BIA 2009)

(1) An Immigration Judge has authority under section 236(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a)(2)(A) (2006), and 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1) (2009) to review and consider whether to modify the conditions of release imposed on an alien by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

(2) Where the respondent filed an application with the Immigration Judge to ameliorate the terms of release within 7 days of his release from custody by the DHS, the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction to review and modify the condition placed on the respondent’s release that he participate in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program.

(ID 3656)

Matter of SILITONGA, 25 I&N Dec. 89 (BIA 2009)

Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 245.2(a)(1) and 1245.2(a)(1)(ii) (2009), Immigration Judges have no jurisdiction to adjudicate an application filed by an arriving alien seeking adjustment of status, with the limited exception of an alien who has been placed in removal proceedings after returning to the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole to pursue a previously filed application.

(ID 3655)

Matter of G-D-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 82 (BIA 2009)

An alien who entered the United States pursuant to a crewman’s visa for the purpose of obtaining employment as a crewman is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(c)(1) (2006). Matter of Goncalves, 10 I&N Dec. 277 (BIA 1963), followed.

(ID 3654)

Matter of EVRA, 25 I&N Dec. 79 (BIA 2009)

The conduct underlying an alien’s arrest and incarceration does not constitute “fault” within the meaning of section 240(b)(5)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) (2006), which provides that an order of removal issued at a hearing conducted in absentia may be rescinded if the alien was in Federal or State custody at the time of the scheduled hearing and the failure to appear was “through no fault of the alien.”

(ID 3653)

Matter of A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2009)

(1) Notwithstanding the heading of section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2006), which only refers to nonpermanent residents, a lawful permanent resident who qualifies as a battered spouse may be eligible to apply for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(2) of the Act.

(2) Given the nature and purpose of the relief of cancellation of removal for battered spouses under section 240A(b)(2) of the Act, such factors as an alien’s divorce from an abusive spouse, remarriage, and previous self-petition for relief based on the abusive marriage are relevant in determining whether an application for that relief should be granted in the exercise of discretion.

(ID 3652)

Matter of LAMUS, 25 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2009)

A motion to reopen to apply for adjustment of status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of removal proceedings may not be denied under the fifth factor enumerated in Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), based on the mere fact that the Government has filed an opposition to the motion, without regard to the merit of that
opposition.

(ID 3651)

Matter of BULNES, 25 I&N Dec. 57 (BIA 2009)

An alien’s departure from the United States while under an outstanding order of deportation or removal issued in absentia does not deprive the Immigration Judge of jurisdiction to entertain a motion to reopen to rescind the order if the motion is premised upon lack of notice.

(ID 3650)

Matter of LUJAN, 25 I&N Dec. 53 (BIA 2009)

The Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an appeal by the Department of Homeland Security of an Immigration Judge’s decision to vacate an expedited removal order after a claimed status review hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1235.3(b)(5)(iv) (2009), at which the Immigration Judge determined the respondent to be a United States citizen.

(ID 3649)

Matter of LOPEZ, 25 I&N Dec. 49 (BIA 2009)

An applicant for Temporary Protected Status may seek de novo review by an Immigration Judge in removal proceedings, regardless of whether all appeal rights before the Department of Homeland Security have been exhausted. Matter of Barrientos, 24 I&N Dec. 100 (BIA 2007), clarified.

(ID 3648)

Matter of WERNER, 25 I&N Dec. 45 (BIA 2009)

(1) The Attorney General has not delegated authority to Immigration Judges, under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d) (2009), to redetermine the conditions of custody imposed by the Department of Homeland Security with respect to aliens who have not been issued and served with a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) in relation to removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Part 1240 (2009).

(2) An alien admitted to the United States pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program who has not been served with a Notice to Appear pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Part 1240 is not entitled to a custody hearing before an Immigration Judge under 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d). Matter of Gallardo, 21 I&N Dec. 210 (BIA 1996), superseded.

(ID 3647)

Matter of BARCENAS, 25 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 2009)

(1) An alien who willfully and knowingly makes a false representation of birth in the United States on a passport application is inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) (2006), for making a false representation of United States citizenship.

(2) The respondent, who was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (2006) for falsely representing that she was born in the United States on an application for a passport, is removable under section 237(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) (2006), as an alien who was inadmissible at the time of her adjustment of status under section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.

(ID 3646)

Matter of WANG, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009)

The automatic conversion and priority date retention provisions of the Child Status Protection Act, Pub L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927 (2002), do not apply to an alien who ages out of eligibility for an immigrant visa as the derivative beneficiary of a fourth-preference visa petition, and on whose behalf a second-preference petition is later filed by a different petitioner.

(ID 3645)

Matter of CARDIEL, 25 I&N Dec. 12 (BIA 2009)

A conviction for receipt of stolen property under section 496(a) of the California Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment of at least 1 year, categorically qualifies as a receipt of stolen property aggravated felony conviction under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (2006).

(ID 3644)

Matter of A-T-, 25 I&N Dec. 4 (BIA 2009)

(1) Requests for asylum or withholding of removal premised on past persecution related to female genital mutilation must be adjudicated within the framework set out by the Attorney General in Matter of A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008).

(2) Once past persecution on account of an enumerated ground is shown, a presumption is triggered that there would be future harm on the basis of the original claim or, in other words, on account of the same statutory ground.

(3) An applicant for asylum or withholding should clearly indicate what enumerated ground(s) he or she is relying upon in making a claim, including the exact delineation of any particular social group to which the applicant claims to belong.

(ID 3643)

COMPEAN, BANGALY & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009)

The Attorney General vacated the decision in Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 710 (A.G. 2009), and pending the outcome of a rulemaking process, directed the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judges to continue to apply the previously established standards for reviewing motions to reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Browse Services

 

Top Rated Articles

 

BIA Decisions

 

News

view all