The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice SealF The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 
 
Virtual Law Library

Board Precedents and Related Court Decisions

Last Updated: January 10, 2014


Volume 15 Volume 16 Volume 17 Volume 18 Volume 19 Volume 20
Volume 21 Volume 22 Volume 23 Volume 24 Volume 25 Volume 26


Court Decisions Relating to Board Precedents
Board Cite   Board Holding Court Response
J-, 2 I&N Dec. 285 (1945)  

for deportability based on admitting acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime, conduct must be a crime, alien must be advised in clear manner of the essential elements, alien must admit the conduct, and admission must be voluntary

Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002) - cited with approval

 
M-, 3 I&N Dec. 850 (1950)  

"Legal custody" can include "actual uncontested custody"

Bagot v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2005) - adopts rationale

 
B-, 5 I&N Dec. 698 (1954)  

Proxy marriage not recognized even where parties have lived together if marriage not consummated after the proxy marriage

Moussa v. INS, 302 F.3d 823(8th Cir. 2002) - cited with approval

 
K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594 (1957)  

for deportability based on admitting acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime, alien must have been furnished an understandable definition of the crime and all its elements

Pazcoguin v. Radcliffe, 292 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002) - cited with approval

 
Kinney, 10 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 1964)  

Conviction for obtaining goods under false pretenses under § 8698, Gen. Stat. of CT., not a CIMT.

Tijani v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4925449 (9th Cir. 2010) - not accorded deference due to Board’s “erroneous exposition” of the elements of a state crime.

 
Valera, 13 I&N Dec. 453 (BIA 1970)  

Visa petition properly denied upon death of immediate relative (spouse)

1. Lockhart v. Napolitano,2009 WL 217392 (6th Cir. 2009), declines to follow

2. Taing v. Napolitano, 567 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2009), declines to follow;

3. Freeman v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2006), contrary conclusion;

4. Robinson v. Napolitano, 554 F.3d 358, 364 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that one’s status as a “spouse” is determined not at the time a visa petition is filed, but rather at the time it is adjudicated).

 
Grazley, 14 I&N Dec. 330 (1973)  

Theft offense ordinarily involves moral turpitude only where taking is permanent; permanent taking may be reasonably presumed from facts

Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 102 (2d Cir. 2007): cites with approval

 
Kwan, 14 I&N Dec. 175 (BIA 1972)  

“(A) Absent a formal adoption decree, petitioners seeking to prove the validity of a Chinese adoption should submit other evidence, including affidavits. (B) Information in such affidavits should not be disregarded as hearsay; in administrative proceedings such fact merely effects the weight to be afforded. (C) An exception to the hearsay rule exists for statements as to pedigree/family history.”

B. 1. Toribio-Chavez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2680784 (1st Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

 
MacCaud, 14 I&N Dec. 429 (1973)  

Passport is evidence of citizenship, but not conclusive evidence

Palavra v. INS, 287 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval


Return to top of the page


Volume 15
 
Cruz, 15 I&N Dec. 236 (1975)  

Deportation proceedings will not be terminated to permit respondent to proceed with naturalization proceedings unless prima facie eligibility established by INS or court declaration.

1. De Lara Bellajaro v. Schiltgen, 378 F. 3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2004) - questions continued validity after 2000 statutory amendment to INA § 310(c)

2. Zayed v. U.S., 368 F. 3d 902 (6th Cir. 2004) - (same as above)

3. Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 927 (9th Cir. 2007) - defers to Board’s reaffirmance in Acosta - Hidalgo, 24 I&N Dec. 103

 
Kai Hing Hui, 15 I&N Dec. 288 (BIA 1975)  

An alien who obtained entry through a false identity document is excludable under former INA § 212(a)(19) for wilfull misrepresentation of a material fact, and does not merit exercise of discretion for adjustment of status.

1. Parlak v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2581301 (6th Cir. 2009) - cited favorably

2. Ortiz-Bouchet v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1729412 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited

 
Jo, 15 I&N Dec. 401 (1975)  

245 adjustment application filed in deportation proceedings not considered renewal of earlier application where earlier application was denied and new one is based on a new business enterprise.

Brito v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 160 (2d Cir. 2008),cites favorably

 
Winkens, 15 I&N Dec. 451 (1975)  

parent's abandonment of lawful permanent resident status is imputed to minor child

Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and extends, holding that lawful admission and permanent residence can be imputed to minor child to satisfy continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes

 
Pierre, 15 I&N Dec. 461 (1975)  

Applicant’s fear of persecution by her husband, a high government official, lacks the required nexus to a protected ground where the husband’s motive appears to be strictly personal.

Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F. 3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) - follows

 
Aviles, 15 I&N Dec. 588 (BIA 1976)  

District Director loses jurisdiction upon filing of appeal; any subsequent motion must be filed w/ BIA

Lemus-Reyes v. Holder, 2011 WL 679344 (5th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably

 
Medina, 15 I&N Dec. 611 (1976)  

A. Conviction for aggravated assault with deadly weapon is crime involving moral turpitude

B. Moral turpitude can lie in criminally reckless conduct

A. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2001) - agrees with, and finds assault with dangerous weapon a crime involving moral turpitude

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - upholds, finding conviction for attempted reckless endangerment is cimt


Return to top of the page


Volume 16
 
Chirinos, 16 I&N Dec. 276 (BIA 1977)  

Bond determinations do not require formal hearings; there is no right to a transcript

1. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 1226379 (1st Cir. 2011) - held that due process requires a a contemporaneous record of bond hearing, i.e. providing copy of audio recording in lieu of transcript”

 
Marin, 16 I&N Dec. 581 (BIA 1978)  

Sets out discretionary factors to be considered in 212( c) applications.

1. Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F. 3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008): cites with approval.

2. Zheng v. Holder, 2011 WL 1709849 (9th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably;

3. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably

 
Anderson, 16 I&N Dec. 596 (1978)  

for extreme hardship, consider length of residence, ties to U.S.,involvement in community, immigration history, etc.

1. Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited generally with approval

2. Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Patel, 16 I&N Dec. 600 (1978)  

Board remand is effective for stated purpose and all other matters IJ deems appropriate unless Board qualifies or limits the remand

1. Johnson v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 2002) - agrees with and interprets to require that for remand to be limited, Board must specifically retain jurisdiction and limit remand to specific purpose

2. Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2010) - agrees with Board holding

3. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) - cites with approval

 
Da Lomba, 16 I&N Dec. 616 (1978)  

241(f) can forgive deportability under section 241(c), a charge grounded squarely on 212(a)(19) fraud charge

Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

 
Chumpitazi,16 I&N Dec. 629 (1978)  

Loss of job and concomitant financial loss is not “extreme hardship” for suspension of deportation purposes despite 11 - year stay in U.S.

Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Kaneda, 16 I&N Dec. 677 (1979)  

state court motive of defeating deportability is a permissible purpose for first offender statute

Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval


Return to top of the page


Volume 17
 
Magana, 17 I&N Dec. 111 (BIA 1979);  

The relation - back doctrine only applies in immigration proceedings to bring about a more just result.

McCreath v. Holder, 2009 WL 2151377 (1st Cir. 2009), discusses.

 
Kong, 17 I&N Dec. 151 (BIA 1979)  

To file a visa petition for a sibling, petitioner and beneficiary must establish they once qualified as children of a common parent, and that parent is still parent of each of them when visa petition adjudicated.

Kosak v. Aguirre, 518 F. 3d 210 (3d Cir. 2008): upholds as reasonable interpretation

 
Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 1980)   212(h) waiver may be granted nunc pro tunc in deportation hearings to cure a ground of inadmissibility at time of entry.  1. Margulis v. Holder, 2013 WL 3970051 (7th Cir. 2013) – cited.
 
Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 225 (1980)  

Forging immigration documents is a crime involving moral turpitude

1. Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) - finds decision reasonable

2. Yeremin v. Holder, 2013 WL 535755 (6th Cir. 2013) – cited and discussed

 
Areguillin, 17 I&N Dec. 308 (BIA 1980)  

Defines statutory terms “inspected” and “admitted.”

1. Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder, 2013 WL 718455 (9th Cir. 2013) – Finds holding not contrary to circuit case law.

 
Garcia-Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 325 (1980)  

regulatory violation by INS results in exclusion of evidence only where reg. benefits alien and violation resulted in prejudice to alien

1. Martinez-Camargo v. INS, 282 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2002) - upholds

2. Ward v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 181485 (7th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

 
McKee, 17 I&N Dec. 332 (BIA 1980)  

A. A sham marriage does not entitle an alien spouse to immigration benefits;

B. Where marriage is valid and no evidence of legal separation or dissolution of marriage, visa petition should not be denied solely because parties are not living together;

C. However, separation is a relevant factor in determining intent at time of marriage as to whether the marriage is a sham. 

B.1. Agyei v. Holder, 2013 WL 4618389 (1st Cir. 2013) - cited

 
Belenzo, 17 I&N Dec. 374 (BIA 1981; A.G. 1981))  

The 5 year limit on bringing rescission proceedings does not bar subsequent deportation proceedings even where the alleged grounds for the deportation are committed in the procuring of adjustment of status.

1. Monet v. INS, 791 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1986) - agrees

2. Asika v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 264 (4th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

3. Garcia v. Attorney General of the United States, 533 F.3d 724 (3d Cir., 2009) - disagrees (see also Bamidele v. INS, 99 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 1996)).

 
Zamora, 17 I&N Dec. 395 (1980)  

intent of parent imputed to minor child

Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and extends, holding that lawful admission and permanent residence can be imputed to minor child to satisfy continuous physical presence for cancellation purposes

 
Lasike, 17 I&N Dec. 445 (1980)  

A “renewed” 245 adjustment application will be treated as a new application if alien was ineligible to adjust at time of original denial, and present application is based on circumstances occurring since denial.

Brito v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 160 (2d Cir. 2002): cites favorably

 
Boromand, 17 I&N Dec. 450 (1980)  

absent evidence of sham marriage, cannot deny adj based solely on non - viability of marriage at time of adj. Look to intent at time of marriage

1. Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

2. Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

 
Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503 (1980)  

When name on INS records is same as respondent's, may infer they relate to him, absent a denial by the respondent

Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 242 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites generally with approval

 
McMullen, 17 I&N Dec. 542 (1980)  

if persecution is by non-government entity, alien must show more than government "difficulty" in controlling it

1. Menjivar v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2005) - cited with approval

2. De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 2013 WL 1705972 (8th Cir. 2013) – cited

 
McMillan, 17 I&N Dec. 605 (1981)  

visa preference based on stepchild relationship only requires a valid marriage, without further qualification

Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, but finds that Board did not apply the ruling in this case


Return to top of the page


Volume 18
 
Frentescu, 18 I&N Dec. 244 (1982)  

sets forth criteria for determining whether crime is "particularly serious"

1. Yousefi v. INS, 260 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2001) - upholds the criteria, but finds not applied in this case

2. Steinhouse v. Ashcroft, 247 F.Supp.2d 201 (D. Conn. 2003) - upholds criteria, but finds Board failed to consider the important criterion of whether the alien presents a danger to the community

3. Brue v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2006) - follows.

4. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007) - upholds the criteria, but finds not followed in this case.

5. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

6. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 2013 WL 1442508 (9th Cir. 2013) – examines at length; finds still applicable; remands for BIA to apply to present case.


Return to top of the page


Volume 19
 
Cardoso, 19 I&N Dec. 5 (BIA 1983)  

Under Cape Verde law (effective 10/1/76) eliminating any distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, a beneficiary born on or after such date is deemed the legitimate child of his/her natural father.

1. Brandao v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 3584317 (3d Cir. 2011) – follows.

 
Hernandez, 19 I&N Dec. 14 (BIA 1983)  

When the country where the beneficiary was born and resides eliminates all distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, all children are deemed to be the legitimate children of their natural fathers from time of country’s change in law.

Brandao v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 3584317 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

 
Fedorenko, 19 I&N Dec. 57 (1984)  

Board's function is to review, not create, the record, and it is not required to receive new evidence on appeal

1. Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc) - reversing its earlier decision in this case, holds Board should have considered new evidence

2. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects

 
McMullen, 19 I&N Dec. 90 (1984)  

A. Refusing (for reasons of personal safety) to carry out a kidnapping ordered by the IRA is not a political opinion for asylum purposes.

B. Participation in persecuting targeted individuals for their public opposition to the IRA and its terrorist activities is a bar to asylum.

C. Criminal activity out of proportion with the political goals of the IRA does not fall within the political offense exception.

C. 1. Zheng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2012) – cites favorably.

 
Wadud, 19 I&N Dec. 182 (1984)  

212(c) waiver not available where deportation ground (241(a)(5)) has no counterpart under INA §212(a).

Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007) - follows

 
Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (1985)  

A. "Particular social group" is group sharing common, immutable characteristic

B. Asylum applicant must show country - wide persecution

A. 1. Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites generally with approval

A. 2. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

A. 3. Lin v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, also noting family as potential particular social group

A. 4. Elien v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392(1st Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

A. 5. Thomas v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2005) - cites with approval for rule that kinship ties/family can be particular social group

A. 6. Tapiero-de Orejuela v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

A. 7. Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) - adopts as reasonable construction of term

A. 8. Escobar v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, butfinds homeless children in Honduras do not qualify as psg

A. 9. Gao v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

A. 10. Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F. 3d 702 (2d Cir. 2007): follows

A. 11. Al - Ghorbani v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3718297 (6th Cir. 2009) - cites favorably

A. 12. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited.

A. 13. 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

A. 14. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly.

A. 15. Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 5903780 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites, discusses

A. 16. Rojas-Perez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2012) – cited for lack of “social visibility” requirement

A. 17. Quinteros v. Holder, 2013 WL 764719 (8TH Cir. 2013) – accords Chevron deference

A.18. Cece v. Holder, 2013 WL 4083282 (7th Cir. 2013)- cited

A.19. Cordoba v. Holder, 2013 WL 4055590 (9th Cir. 2013) – cited for holding landownership to form a basis for a PSG.

B. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2001) - cautions that burden is on INS, not alien, to show no nation - wide threat, if past persecution has been shown

 
Valencia, 19 I&N Dec. 354 (1986)  

Summary dismissal ok where no brief and only generalized statement on Notice of Appeal

Vargas-Garcia v. INS, 287 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2002) - does not reject, but criticizes the rigid requirements, saying the appeal form does not adequately warn of possible S/D

 
Torres, 19 I&N Dec. 371 (1986)  

A. aliens in exclusion are not eligible for suspension

B. Paroled aliens are properly in exclusion, not deportation proceedings

A. 1. Sherifi v. INS, 260 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2001) - upholds

A. 2. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited generally with approval

B. Assa'ad v. U.S. Attorney General, 332 F.3d 1321(11th Cir. 206/5/03) - cited generally with approval

 
Velasquez, 19 I&N Dec. 377 (BIA 1986)  

A. Absent a showing of egregious circumstances, an attorney’s concession is binding on an alien.  B. It is immaterial whether the alien authorized the attorney to concede deportability. C. As there is no limited appearance in removal proceedings, an attorney’s concession on one matter is not inadmissible as to another matter.

1. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2011 WL 3966121 (9th Cir. 2011) – discussed and followed.

 
Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (1987)  

asylum applicant must show more than civil strife; states what must be shown, and states alien must show persecutor "could easily become aware" of protected beliefs , etc.

1. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 ( 5th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

2. Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007): cites

 
A-G- , 19 I&N Dec. 502 (1987)  

A. Generally, reasonable punishment for evasion of military conscription in not persecution.

B. Exceptions to A: (a) in rare cases, where such punishment is disproportionately severe on account of protected asylum ground; or (b) where military service requires one to engage in internationally condemned inhuman conduct.

C. Salim,18 I&N Dec. 311, distinguishable because there, refusal was to serve in foreign occupying army.

Kibinda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 477 F. 3d 113 (3rd Cir. 2007): cites with approval, but found applicant failed to satisfy criteria.

 
Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (1988)  

Defines “conviction” for immigration purposes.

Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2010) - No Chevron deference where Ozkok decision predated INA § 101(a)(48) definition of conviction, and did not address particular situation presented in Retuta

 
Gutierrez, 19 I&N Dec. 562 (BIA 1988)  

A. An alien in exclusion proceedings may withdraw an application for admission where the IJ finds that justice would best be served. B. A balancing of the equities test is inappropriate in determining whether to allow such withdrawal. C. It was never contemplated that withdrawal of an application for admission would become a nonstatutory form of relief from admission after excludability was established. D. After a hearing has been conducted and excludability established, withdrawal should only be allowed with concurrence of the INS. 

1. U.S. v. Barajas-Alvarado, 2011 WL 3689244 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
Balibundi, 19 I&N Dec. 606 (1988)  

will not consider application for relief on the merits where alien fails to appear

Kaur v. INS, 237 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2001) - distinguished - here, alien appeared but declined to testify without chance to review evidence

 
Barcenas, 19 I&N Dec. 609   Respondent questioning legality of evidence must make prima facie case for suppression before DHS assumes burden of justifying manner in which evidence was obtained. 

1. Pretzantzin v. Holder, 2013 WL 3927587 (2d Cir. 2013) – cited favorably. 

2. Jay v. Holder, 2013 WL 3927605 (2d Cir. 2013) – cited favorably and discussed at length.

 
Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (1988)  

imposes several requirements for making a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

1. Lozada v. INS*, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988) - affirmed

2. Castillo-Perez v. INS, 212 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2000) - Lozada reqs. "not sacrosanct" - substantial compliance may be sufficient

3. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2000) - upholds requirements

4. Hernandez v. Reno, 238 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2001) - upholds requirements

5. Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21(1st Cir. 2001) - agrees with 9th Cir. that reqs. may not be "arbitrarily" applied

6. Stroe v. INS, 256 F.3d 498 (7th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and rejects any exceptions to Lozada rules - also questions whether there is constitutional right to counsel in deportation proceedings

7. Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2001) - upholds requirements, BUT failure to file bar complaint not fatal if reas. explanation

8. Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2002) - Lozada reqs. need not always be "rigidly applied."

9. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061(9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, including req. that prejudice be shown

10. Hamid v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 465 (6th Cir 2003) - upholdsrequirements

11. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) - makes clear that 9th Cir. will not rigidly apply the requirements

12. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) - 9th Cir. Will require affidavit regarding atty conduct where facts are not plain on the record, and also prejudice must be shown

13. Dakane v. U.S. Attorney General, 371 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, including req. that prejudice be shown

14. Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 2004 383 F. 3d 893 (9th Cir. 2004) - cites generally, and finds erroneous advice regarding change in law did not taint fairness of proceedings

15. Mohammed v. Gonzales,400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) - on prejudice req, states alien only need show "plausible grounds" for relief

16. Hernandez-Moran v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and finds alien did not comply with requirements

17. Zheng v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 409 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and finds alien did not comply with requirements

18. Yang v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 133 (2d Cir. 2007) - cites with approval, but holds only substantial compliance with requirements necessary. Remands for Board to consider evidence “too important to ignore.”

19. Grigoryan v. Keisler, 507 F. 3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2007): cites

20. Wang v. BIA, 508 F. 3d 710, (2d Cir. 2007): follows

21. Morales Apolinar v. Mukasey, 514F. 3d 893 (9th Cir. 2008): follows, finds substantial compliance.

22. Ruiz - Martinez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 102 (2d Cir. 2008): follows

23. Beltre - Veloz v. Mukasey, — F. 3d —, 2008 WL 2673213 (1st Cir. 2008): upholdsrequirements

24. Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no Fifth Amend. right to effective counsel

25. Afawni v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

26. Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

27. Tamang v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 917202 (9th Cir. 2010) - follows

28. Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but held that IJ misapplied where preparer was non - attorney.

29. Jiang v. Holder, 2011 WL 923279 (7th Cir. 2011) - reaffirms validity and need for strict compliance w/ requirements

30. Marinov v. Holder, 2012 WL 3111619 (7th Cir. 2012) – cites favorably and discusses

31. Correa-Rivera v. Holder, 2013 WL 440647 (9th Cir. 2013) – Interprets as not requiring the filing of a bar complaint.

 
Vizcaino, 19 I&N Dec. 644 (1988)  

where statute was clearly intended to be generous, it should be generously interpreted

Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013 (9thCir. 2005) - cites with approval

 
Fuentes, 19 I&N Dec. 658 (1988)  

A. dangers arising from employment as policeman is not persecution

B. with regard to particular social group and immutable characteristics, makes distinction between current and former policemen

A. 1. Estrada-Escobar v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 2004) - upholds, and finds rationale applies to terrorist activities, including those of Shining Path.

A. 2. Konan v. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 497 (3rdCir. 2005) - upholds, but finds Board did not apply to case.

A. 3. Castenada-Castillo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1049777 (1st Cir. 2011) - upholds, but interprets to apply only to dangers faced “in the line of duty”

A. 4. Khattak v. Holder, 704 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 2013) – found not applicable where fear based on factors outside the line of duty.

A. 5. Madrigal v. Holder, 2013 WL 1983882 (9th Cir. 2013) – cites

B. Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 611 (7th Cir. 2003) - does not reject, but states that distinction "may have gone too far"

C. Sepulveda v. Gonzalez, 464 F.3d 770, 772 (7th Cir.2006) - cites with approval.

 
Danesh, 19 I&N Dec. 669 (1988)  

Knowing aggravated assault vs. an on-duty peace officer, causing bodily harm, is a CIMT.

Cano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 557171 (11th Cir. 2013) – cites favorably

 
Canas, 19 I&N Dec. 697 (1988)  

discrimination based on religion in enforcing conscription laws could constitute persecution

Ilchuck v. Attorney General, 434 F.3d 618 (3d Cir. 2006) - cites with approval, and finds such persecution

 
Grijalva, 19 I&N Dec. 713 (1988)  

Hearsay is admissible in deportation proceedings unless fundamentally unfair

Velasquez-Valencia v. INS, 244 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2001) - cited with approval

 
Huang, 19 I&N Dec. 749 (1988)  

to qualify as returning lawful permanent resident, alien must be returning from a temporary visit abroad

1. Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

2. Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

 
Rodriguez-Majano, 19 I&N Dec. 811 (1988)  

Activity related to civil war is not persecution unless the harm is shown to have been inflicted to overcome a belief or characteristic

B. While membership in an organization, even one which engages in persecution, is not sufficient to bar one from relief as a persecutor of others, if one's action or inaction furthers that persecution in some way he would be barred from relief. It is the objective effect of an alien's actions which is controlling.

A. Vukmirovic v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

B. 2. Castaneda-Castillo v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 347 (1st Cir., September 29, 2006) - cites with approval


Return to top of the page


Volume 20
 
Chen, 20 I&N Dec. 16 (1989)  

Alien who has suffered past persecution may be granted asylum for humanitarian reasons even without well - founded fear of future persecution

1. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) - upholds reasoning, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds Chen does not require ongoing disability

2. Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003)cites with approval

3. Brucaj v. Ashcroft, 381F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

4. Hamida v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 734 (6th Cir. 2007)- cited with approval

5. Sheriff v. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4042936 (3d Cir. 2009) - cited and discussed.

 
Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25 (1989)  

Board must follow circuit court precedent in cases arising in the circuit

1. Abdulai v. INS, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) - generally cited

2. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Rodriguez-Esteban, 20 I&N Dec. 88 (BIA 1989)  

IJ/BIA lack jurisdiction in deportation hearings to reconsider INS’s rescission order. (Court response): Estrada v. Holder, 2010 WL 1740780 (7th Cir. 2010)

holding does not apply to challenges to the service of the rescission order.

 
Soleimani, 20 I&N Dec. 99 (1989)  

A. alien not firmly resettled if presence in the U.S. is a consequence of his flight in search of refuge

B. Foreign law is a matter to be proven by the party seeking to rely upon it

C. Finding of firm resettlement does not bar asylum, but is only factor to consider in exercising discretion

A. Ali v. Reno, 237 F.3d 591(6th Cir. 2001) - generally cited, with approval

B. Abdille v.Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) - followed (on issue of burden of proof in proving foreign law)

C. Diallo v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2004) - notes no longer good law under asylum statute

 
Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. 116 (BIA 1989)  

A. Asylum applicant cannot meet burden of proof without testifying under oath;

B. Where parties stipulate that testimony will be consistent and believable, R’s sworn testimony may be limited to affirming that written application is complete and correct. 

A.1. Oshodi v. Holder, 2013 WL 4511636 (9th Cir. 2013) – cited and followed.

 
Villalta, 20 I&N Dec. 142 (1990)  

where family and alien were singled out due to political beliefs, well - founded fear shown

Corado v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

 
Barrett, 20 I&N Dec. 171 (1990)  

state drug conviction can constitute "drug trafficking crime" under 18 USC § 924(c)(2) and thus be an ag fel if it would have been punishable under federal law as a felony

Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts analysis ( see also Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, below)

 
Edwards, 20 I&N Dec. 196 (1990)  

212(c) applicant with serious criminal history has burden of showing unusual or outstanding equities to warrant grant

U.S. v. Gonzalez-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051(9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

 
Medrano, 20 I&N Dec. 216 (1991)  

motion to reconsider based on legal argument that could have been raised on appeal will be denied

Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

 
Sanchez, 20 I&N Dec. 223 (1990)  

Proceedings begin when charging document is filed with Immigration Judge

Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik, 291 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

 
Guavara, 20 I&N Dec. 238 (BIA 1991)  

Negative inference may be drawn from a respondent’s silence when confronted with evidence of his deportability.

1. Barradas v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3014645 (7th Cir. 2009) - followed.

2. Pretzantzin v. Holder, 2013 WL 3927587 (2d Cir. 2013) - acknowledged

 
Huete, 20 I&N Dec. 250 (1991)  

for proper service of OSC by certified mail, need return receipt signed by alien or responsible person at his address

1. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes where certified mail receipt bears illegible signature - that is not sufficient to create presumption of delivery to alien or responsible person

2. Chaidez v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 773 (9th Cir, 2007) - distinguishes where return receipt signed by someone unknown to respondent

 
Hernandez-Casillas, 20 I&N Dec. 262 (A.G. 1991)  

212(c) is available in deportation proceedings only where there is comparable ground of exclusion

1. Farquharson v. Ashcroft, 246 F.3d 1317 11th Cir. 2001) - upholds

2. Sena v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

3. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007)- cites with approval

 
Stockwell, 20 I&N Dec. 309 (BIA 1991)  

A. Conditional permanent resident prohibited by INA § 245(d) from adjusting status under § 245(a).

B. § 245(d) does not bar one whose conditional resident status has been terminated from adjusting under § 245(a).

B. 1. Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder, 2012 WL 2213662 (2d Cir. 2012) – cited; distinguished

 
Patel, 20 I&N Dec. 368 (1991)  

"Entry" requires (1) crossing into U.S., (2) inspection and admission or EWI, and (3) freedom from official restraint

Sidhu v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2004) - adopts the definition, citing cases from other circuits that have also done so

 
Balderas, 20 I&N Dec. 389 (1991)  

212(c) only waives finding of deportability, but crimes do not disappear from record for immigration purposes

1. Rodriguez-Munoz v. Gonzales, 419 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2005) - cited with approval - crime waived for 212(c) can still bar cancellation as ag fel.

2. Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347 (8th Cir. August 30, 2006) - cites with approval.

3. De Hoyos v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5120768 (5th Cir. 2008), extends holding to cases where prior relief granted was cancellation of removal

4. Bakarian v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2008), cites approvingly.

5. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) - cites and discusses favorably

 
Cerna, 20 I&N Dec. 399 (1991)  

motions to reopen and motions to reconsider are fundamentally different with different requirements

1. Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

2. Li v. Mukasey, 515 F. 3d 575 (6th Cir. 2008): cites with approval

3. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2013 WL 819383 (7th Cir. 2013) – Cited

 
D-L- & A-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 409 (1991)  

Aliens who lived an worked for 6 years in a third country as lawful temporary residents with option to become permanent residents were firmly resettled there.

Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

 
Correa-Garces, 20 I&N Dec. 451 (BIA 1992)  

Conviction for making false statements on a passport application and for willfully, knowingly, and w/ intent to deceive falsely representing a soc. security no. as one’s own in order to obtain a U.S. passport in another person’s name = CIMT.

Tijani v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4925449 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably

 
Coelho, 20 I&N Dec. 464 (1992)  

A. where motion to remand really in nature of motion to reopen, it must comply with motion to reopen requirements

B. MTR should not be granted unless new evidence could not have been discovered earlier by "due diligence"

A. 1. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2001) - upholds

A. 2. Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

A. 3. Clifton v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1006436 (8th Cir. 2010) - cited

A. 4. Duhaney v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 340 (3d Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

B. Krougliak v. INS, 289 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

 
Arthur, 20 I&N. Dec. 475 (1992) modified, Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (2002)  

Motions to reopen for purposes of adjusting status based upon unadjudicated visa petitions governed by INA §§204(g) and 245(e) will not be granted.

1. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F. 3d 1044 (6th Cir. 2007): cites

2. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
A-A-, 20 I&N Dec. 492 (1992)  

5 - year imprisonment bar to 212(c) relief applies to aliens regardless of when the conviction occurs (with exception regarding crimes added to ag fel definition by IMMACT 1990, if crime committed before that Act)

1. Toia v. Fasano, 334 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects, finding 5 - year bar does not apply to aliens who pleaded guilty prior to 1990 Act, and who are otherwise eligible

2. Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

 
Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506 (1992)  

reaffirms its historical approach to meaning of "single scheme of criminal misconduct"

1. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005) - upholds

2. Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

 
Beltran, 20 I&N Dec. 521 (1992)  

conviction for solicitation to commit a controlled substance offense renders alien deportable as one convicted of drug offense

1. Peters v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2004) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

2. Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997) - distinguishes, where Az solicitation statute encompasses underlying offenses that are not drug offenses

 
Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536 (1992); modified Yanez, 23 I&N 390 (2002)  

A. state drug conviction can be ag fel if analogous to felony under federal law and it contains a "trafficking element"

B. where underlying offense is a crime involving moral turpitude, conspiracy or attempt to commit such crime is cimt

A. Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts analysis (see also Barrett, 20 I&N Dec. 171, above)

A.2. Soto-Hernandez v. Holder, 2013 WL 4618353 (1st Cir. 2013) – accords Chevron deference to inclusion of single sale of single firearm under definition of “trafficking in firearms.”

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - agrees with, but distinguishes where crime involves recklessness, because acting recklessly is inconsistent with mens rea required for attempt

 
Serna, 20 I&N Dec. 579 (1992)  

possession of altered immigration documents not a CIMT unless there is intent to use them unlawfully

Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) - finds decision reasonable

 
Rodriguez-Cortes, 20 I&N Dec. 587 (1992)  

sentence enhancement provisions of the California Penal Code imposing an additional term of imprisonment where any of the principals involved possessed a firearm does not constitute a separate firearms conviction

Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007) - cites with approval, rejects argument that decision held murderers may apply for 212(c), as this was not question before BIA

 
Rainford, 20 I&N Dec. 598 (1992)  

firearms conviction does not preclude finding of admissibility in conjunction with application for adjustment

1. Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) - Generally cited and applied

2. Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2795327 (5th Cir. 2010) - cited (in fn).

3. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
Montenegro, 20 I&N Dec. 603 (1992)  

A. 212(c) waiver cannot cure 241(a)(2)(C) deportability for firearms conviction, even where conviction also falls under §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) as a CIMT.

B. Matter of Meza is limited to question of eligibility for 212(c) by drug trafficking ag fel; does not alter general rule that deport ground must have comparable exclusion ground for 212(c) to apply.

A. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007) - cites with approval

 
R-, 20 I&N Dec. 621 (1992)  

Asylum applicant must show country - wide persecution

Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2001) - cautions that burden is on INS, not alien, to show no countrywide threat, if past persecution has been shown

 
Shih, 20 I&N Dec. 697  

A. An IJ’s decision becomes final immediately upon waiver of alien’s right to appeal.

B. Board lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate case where alien waived appeal.

B. 1. Kohwarien v. Holder, 2011 WL 754259 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
Li, 20 I&N Dec. 700 (1993)  

A. An adopted child may not confer immigration benefits on a natural parent.

B. An adopted child may not confer immigration benefits on a biological sibling, as the common parent is no longer the parent of the adopted child for immigration purposes.

Kosak v. Aguirre, 518 F. 3d 210 (3d Cir. 2008): upholds as reasonable interpretation

 
Z-, 20 I&N Dec. 707 (1993)  

"Entry" requires (1) crossing into U.S., (2) inspection and admission or EWI, and (3) freedom from official restraint

1. Nyirenda v. INS, 279 F.3d 620 (8th Cir. 2002) - adopts definition

2. Farquharson v. Ashcroft, 246 F.3d 1317 11th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

 
Jimenez-Lopez, 20 I&N Dec. 738 (1993)  

Alien admitted for lawful temporary residence does not make later "entry" when he adjusts to lpr status

1. Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 206/14/05) - accepts reasoning, though in different context

2. Perez-Enriquez v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. September 15, 2006) - upheld

3. Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 485 F. 3d 193 (2d Cir. 2007) - upheld, but clarified that an applicant for adjustment remains a deportable alien until their status is actually adjusted

 
Gabryelsky, 20 I&N Dec. 750 (1993)  

212(c) may be available in conjunction with adjustment for aliens deportable for drug and weapons offenses

1. U.S. v. Gonzalez-Roque, 165 F.Supp. 2d 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) - Generally cited and applied

2. Drax v. Reno, 338 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2003) - Generally cited with approval and applied

3. Pacua v. Holder, 2011 WL 102443 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably; remanded for BIA to consider applicability”

 
Sosa-Hernandez, 20 I&N Dec. 762 (1993)  

241(f) waives not only alien's deportability, but the underlying fraud, and alien is considered lawfully admitted for permanent residence

1. Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

2. Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2010) - distinguished.

 
Y-G-, 20 I&N Dec. 794 (1994)  

Aliens fearing retribution over purely personal matters will not be granted asylum on that basis.

Zoarab v. Mukasey, 524 F. 3d 777 (6th Cir. 2008) - follows

 
Alcantar, 20 I&N Dec. 801 (1994)  

Conviction for involuntary manslaughter under Illinois law is "crime of violence" under 8USC §16, and thus an ag fel.

1. Park v. INS, 252 3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) - reaches same conclusion, in case involving California involuntary manslaughter statute (mentions Alcantar in fn)

2. Omar v. INS, 298 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval in finding that criminal vehicular homicide under Minn. law is a crime of violence

 
Toboso-Alfonso, 20 I&N Dec. 819 (1990)  

sexual orientation can form basis for asylum application

1. Hernaez v. INS, 244 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001) - cited with approval

2. Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply

 
Franklin, 20 I&N Dec. 867 (1994), aff'd (see cite)  

A. Missouri conviction for involuntary manslaughter is CIMT - statute required gross deviation from reasonable person's standard of care

B. Crime is CIMT if accompanied by corrupt mind or vicious motive

A. Franklin v. INS, 72 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 1995), affirmed

B. Partyka v. Attorney General of the United States, 417 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2005) - cited generally with approval

 
Burbano, 20 I&N Dec. 874 (1994)  

Board may adopt or affirm Immigration Judge's decision in brief order that indicates agreement with reasoning and result

1. Paripovic v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2005) - in footnote, states that Burbano orders are entitled to deference

2. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F. 3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005): follows, holding that where the BIA cites Burbano and does not express disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision in its entirety.

3. Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 102 (2d. Cir. 2007): follows

4. Viridiana v. Holder, 630 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2011) - follows, citing Abebe v. Gonzales (see above).


Return to top of the page


Volume 21
 
Esposito, 21 I&N Dec. 1 (1995)  

A. sentence is “actually imposed” where criminal court suspends the execution of a sentence; but not where the imposition of the sentence is suspended.

B. 212(c) will not waive deportability for a firearm offense even where the firearms offense is one of two or more crimes which may render alien inadmissible under INA §212(a)(10).

B. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007) - cites with approval

 
Xiu Hong Li, 21 I&N Dec. 13 (1995)  

If INA section 101(b)(1)(E) was invoked for an immigration benefit, biological relationships will not be recognized for immigration purposes even after adoptive relationship is terminated.

Kosak v. Aguirre, 518 F. 3d 210 (3d Cir. 2008): upholds as reasonable interpretation

 
Grijalva, 21 I&N Dec. 27 (1995)  

Where service of OSC is by certified mail, there is strong presumption of effective service

1. Salta v. INS, 314 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2002) - distinguished, because under later statute, service of notice may be by regular mail

2. Ghounem v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2004) - distinguished, because strong presumption of delivery cannot be applied under later statute only requiring delivery by regular mail

3. Adeyemo v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes where certified mail receipt bears illegible signature - that is not sufficient to create presumption of delivery to alien or responsible person

4. Chaidez v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 773 (9th Cir. 2007) - distinguishedpresumption for service of hearing notice vs. OSC; found no presumption of effective service without signature of “responsible person” for OSCs

5. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F. 3d 981 (9th Cir. 2007): distinguishes; applies weaker presumption service for OSC sent by regular mail (following Salta); lower burden to rebut, with “practical, commonsensical” test

6. Santana v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 506 F. 3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2007): distinguishes; adopts Salta and Sembiring holdings

7. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4893659 (9th Cir. 2009) - cited favorably for holding that personal service practical only when respondent is physically present before IJ.

8. Sanchez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4923316 (6th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

9. Patel v. Holder, 2011 WL 3820847 (8th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

10. Smykiene v. Holder, 2013 WL 514556 (7th Cir. 2013) – cited and discussed

11. Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 2013 WL 4029146 (5th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably.

 
Arreguin de Rodriguez, 21 I&N Dec. 38 (1995)  

in exercising discretion, will not give substantial weight to arrest report, absent conviction or corroborating evidence

1. Billike-Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 708(6th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but finds IJ/Board did not apply it

2. Padmore v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2365863 (2d Cir. 2010) - cites w/approval, but finds BIA did not follow.

3. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

4. Sorcia v. Holder, 2011 WL 2601572 (4th Cir. 2011) - cited and discussed.”

 
B-, 21 I&N Dec. 66 (1995)  

asylum granted due to compelling circumstances despite no well - founded fear

Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) - cited with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds grant of asylum under Chen does not require ongoing disability

 
D-V-, 21 I&N Dec. 77 (1993)  

rape can constitute persecution to support asylum claim

Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

 
L-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 89 (1995), modified Yanez, 23 I&N 390 (2002)  

For immigration purposes, a state drug offense qualifies as a "drug trafficking crime," under 18 USC 924(c),and thus as an ag fel, only if punishable as a felony under federal drug laws.

1. U.S. v. Hernandez-Avalos, 251F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2001) - rejects Board interpretation of § 924(c) as "plainly incorrect."

2. Gerbier v. Holmes, 280 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts analysis (see also Barrett,20 I&N Dec. 171, and Davis, 20 I&N Dec. 536, above)

 
Rivera-Claros, 21 I&N Dec. 232 (1996)  

automatic stay that is granted when filing MTR in absentia hearing continues during appeal from denial of such motion

Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Circuit. 2004) - cites with approval

 
Mendez-Moralez, 21 I&N Dec. 296 (1996)  

Discusses factors to consider in adjudicating application for discretionary relief under section 212(h )

1. Virk v. INS, 295 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites with approval in 241(f) case

2. Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 2013 WL 1442508 (9th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
Pichardo, 21 I&N Dec. 330 (1996)  

Board won't look behind record of conviction to factual circumstances of crime

1. Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2001) - cites with approval (in footnote)

2. Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval, and followed

3. Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir., 2006) - cited with approval.

 
H-, 21 I&N Dec. 337(1996)  

A. asylum may be granted due to compelling circumstances despite no well - founded fear

B. Membership in a clan can constitute membership in a particular social group

A. 1. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds grant of asylum under Chen does not require ongoing disability

A. 2. Huang v. INS, 436 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2006) - cites with approval but finds IJ and Board did not properly apply decision in this case

B. 1. Hagi-Salad v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1044 (8th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval

B. 2. Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

B. 3. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly.

B.4. Cece v. Holder, 2013 WL 4083282 (7th Cir. 2013)- cited as example of broadly-defined PSG

 
Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357 (1996)  

FGM can be the basis for a persecution claim

1. Olowo v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but does not extend to allow derivative asylum based on fear that her daughters (lprs) will be subject to the practice if they return with her, with court emphasizing that they do not have to return

2. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and asylum granted where alien fears she will not be able to protect her daughter (also in proceedings) from the practice

3. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, because alien came here several times before first making her FGM asylum claim

4. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785 (9th Cir. 2005) - approves, and finds part. social group could be defined as Somali tribe or all Somali women. Also, presumption of well - founded fear cannot be rebutted because harm is ongoing

5. Niang v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, but remands on question of credibility and govt ability to control

6. Benyamin v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2581734 (9th Cir. 2009) - interprets holding as FGM is persecution; not as setting a min. level of physical invasion necessary to constitute persecution.”

7. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited.

8. Cece v. Holder, 2013 WL 4083282 (7th Cir. 2013)- cited for purpose of defining PSG parameters in a non-FGM claim.

 
L-O-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 413 (1996)  

A. Reopening may be had where new facts indicate reasonable likelihood of success on merits, so that hearing would be worthwhile

B. Board may deny MTR where regulatory requirements not met, or no prima facie showing of eligibility for relief sought

A. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

B. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval

 
Grijalva-Barrera, 21 I&N 472 (1996)  

Ineffective assistance of counsel may be "exceptional circumstance" excusing failure to appear (where MTR is timely), and notes that prejudice need not be shown

1. Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21(1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

2. Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

3. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934 (9th Cir 2003) - cites no prejudice req. with approval

4. Aris v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 595 (2d Cir. 2008): cites with approval; finds Board failed to follow

 
S-P-, 21 I&N Dec. 486 (1996)  

A. Asylum applicant must show reasonable person would fear persecution OAO, but motivation for persecution need not be shown to a certainty.

B. persecution for "imputed" grounds can satisfy refugee definition

A. 1. Velasquez - Valencia v. INS, 244 F.3d 48(1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

A. 2. Sompotan v. Mukasey, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 2747030 (1st Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

B. Amanfi v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 719 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval, but finds Bd. did not properly apply rule in case involving person people believed to be homosexual

 
Shaar, 21 I&N Dec. 541 (1996) (ID 3290), affirmed (see cite), aff'd, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.1998).  

filing MTR during VD time not an "exceptional circumstance"

1. Shaar v. INS*, 141 F.3d 953 (9th 1998) - affirmed

2. Mardones v. McElroy, 197 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 1999) - cited with approval

3. Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2005) - rejects Shaar post - IIRIRA,holds that where MTR is filed within voluntary departure time, voluntary departure is tolled while Board considers motion

4. Barrios v. Attorney General, 399 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2005) - rejects, finds MTR filed within voluntary departure time constitutes "exceptional circumstance" to forgive failure to depart, even in pre - IIRIRA case

5. Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) - rejects post - IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

6. Kanivets v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2005)- rejects post - IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

7. Banda-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2006) - cited with approval, rejects Azarte, above.

8. Ugokwe v. U.S. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2006) - rejects post-IIRIRA, agreeing with Azarte, above

9. Dekoladenu v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 500 (4th Cir. 2006) - upheld. Rejects Azarte.

10. Naeem v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) - generally approves - questions continued vitality, but finds that motion to reopen filed outside of VD period but within 90 days does not toll voluntary departure.

11. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F. 3d 1044 (6th Cir. 2007): cites.

 
Rivera-Claros, 21 I&N Dec. 599 (1996)  

A. MTR in absentia hearing based on ineffective assistance claim denied where Lozada requirements not satisfied

B. A showing of prejudice is not required to obtain relief from an in absentia order

A. 1. Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2000) - cited with approval

A. 2. Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, and distinguishes b/c Lozadasatisfied on appeal to Board

A. 3. Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2001) - cautions that failure to file bar complaint is not always fatal to ineffective assistance claim

B. 1. Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

 
X-P-T-, 21 I&N Dec. 634 (1996)  

alien forced to have an abortion or undergo sterilization is eligible for asylum and withholding

1. Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) - upholds, as to both asylum and withholding

2. Li v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2005) - does not cite X-P-T-, but does not extend refugee status to alien forced to have IUD inserted - but cautions such insertion could under some facts be persecution

3. Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds alien did not show well - founded fear based on two children born here (first one a girl)

4. Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds Board should have considered evidence indicating children born abroad are counted like those born in China

5. Yang v. U.S. Attorney General, 418 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir. 2005) - finds having forcibly inserted IUD removed could be "other resistance to family planning policies

 
S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (1997)  

A. even where alien is credible, may need corroborating evidence in asylum case where reasonable to expect, or provide explanation for absence of such evidence.

B. Immigration Judge and Service have role in providing evidence in asylum cases

A. 1. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000) corroboration req. "disapproved"if credible testimony

A. 2. Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds corrob. req. (though remands on facts)

A. 3. Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2000) - reiterates its disapproval of S-M-J-

A. 4. Abdulai v. INS, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) - corrob. req. is not per se invalid (but remands on facts)

A. 5. Kayembe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 231(3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval, upholding requirements

A. 6. Miah v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites reqs. generally with approval

A. 7. Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites requirements for requiring corrob. with approval

A. 8. Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval, but notes also Board's holding that corroboration required only as to "material facts"

A. 9. Berishaj v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, but notes 3 - part inquiry necessary for corroboration

A. 10. El-Sheikh v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 643(8th Cir. 2004) - upholds, but emphasizes 3 - part inquiry for requiring corrob.

A. 11. Gontcharova v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 873 (7th Cir. 2004) - upholds, but notes rule depends on reasonableness of expecting evidence

A. 12. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2004) - upholds corrob req.

A. 13. Dawoud v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2005) - cautions that credible asylum claim cannot be rejected solely for lac of corrob evidence

A. 14. Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and finds Board properly applied case

B. Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

 
C-A-L-, 21 I&N Dec. 754 (1997)  

need to show country - wide fear of persecution

1. Abdille v.Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) - follows

2. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2001) - cautions that burden is on INS, not alien, to show no country - wide threat, if past persecution has been shown

 
T-M-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 775 (1997) (ID 3307), reversed (see cite)  

A. criminal extortion is not persecution "on account of" political opinion where reasonable to conclude those who did the harm were not motivated by the applicant's political beliefs

B. DOS Opinions owed considerable deference, absent contradictory evidence.

A. Borja v. INS*, 175 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 1999) - reversed; finds motivation was in part political

B. Manzoor v. INS, 254 F.3d 342 (1st Cir. 2001) - appears to reject - says DOS opinions not binding

 
V-T-S-, 21 I & N. Dec. 792 (1997)  

A. The seriousness of a crime (kidnapping) is not dispositive in proving persecution, which does not include all treatment which society finds unfair, unjust, unlawful or unconstitutional.

B. There may be many reasons for a kidnapping; the asylum applicant bears the burden of establishing that one motive bears a nexus to an enumerated ground.

1. Delgado v. Mukasey, 508 F. 3d 702 (2d Cir. 2007): cites with approval, explains and distinguishes finding Board incorrectly applied.

2. Qu v. Holder, 618 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

 
N-K- & V-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 879 (1997)  

If Lozada reqs met, claim of ineffective assistance of counsel can form basis for MTR after alien ordered excluded in absentia

Osei v. INS, 305 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2002) - cited with approval

 
Fuentes, 21 I&N Dec. 893 (BIA 1997)  

A child who satisfied the conditions of I&N Act § 321(a) before age 18 acquired derivative citizenship regardless of the child’s age when that section was amended by the Act of October 5, 1978.

1. Belleri v. U.S., 2013 WL 979121 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
S-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 900 (BIA 1997)  

“sentence” = the period of incarceration ordered by a court of law (regardless of whether or not served)

1. Cole v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 978199 – discussed

 
Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec. 905 (1997)  

aliens in exclusion still 212(c) eligible post - AEDPA, even though those in deportation are not

1. U.S. v. Estrada-Torres, 179 F. 3d 776 (9th Cir. 1999) - rejects reasoning of Fuentes - Campos; "it makes no sense" to bar 212(c) in dep. proc., but not in excl. - finds the relief eliminated for both (post - AEDPA OSC and conviction)

2. De Sousa v. Reno, 190 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 1999) - "assumes, without deciding," that decision is correctbecause both parties agreed

3. Turkhan v. Perryman, 188 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

4. Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

5. Almon v. Reno, 192 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) - upholds - no equal protection violation

6. Domond v. INS, 244 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2001) - reaches same conclusion (no equal protection violation), but does not cite Board case.

7. Servin-Espinoza v. Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 1193 - rejects reasoning, pursuant to U.S. v. Estrada - Torres, 179 F. 3d 776 (9th Cir. 1999) (see above), and remands for 212(c) in limited category of cases

 

C-Y-Z-, 21 I&N Dec. 915 (1997) overruled, J-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 520 (A.G. 2008)

 

alien whose spouse was forced to undergo abortion or sterilization may qualify as refugee, and is eligible for asylum and withholding

1. Zhao v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) - accepts, but finds precedent not properly applied here

2. Qiu v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2003) - cited generally with approval

3. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2004), amended at 377 F.3d 1014 (2004) - cites with approval, raises question of extension to children

4. Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2004) - extends holding to husbands whose traditional marriages are not recognized in China because underage

5. Chen v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2004) - finds it reasonable to limit Board holding to married couples (rejecting Ma, above)

6. Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) - upholds, as to both asylum and withholding

7. Zhang v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 531(5th Cir. 2004) - finds it reasonable to limit Board holding to married couples (rejecting Ma, above)

8. Zhang v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) - finds NO presumption that child of sterilized alien qualifiesfor asylum ( see Jie Lin,above), but based on facts, child could qualify.

9. Wang v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005) - finds it reasonable to not extend holding to children of sterilized alien

10. Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds alien did not show well - founded fear based on two children born here (first one a girl)

11. Zheng v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2005) - does not actually cite, but finds Board should have considered evidence indicating children born abroad are counted like those born in China

12. Yuan v. U.S. Department of Justice, 416 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 207/26/05) - declines to extend to parents of person subjected to coercive birth control

13. Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 1/19/06) - extends holding to husbands whose marriages are not recognized in China

14. Zhu v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. September 29, 2006) - cites with approval. Does not extended refugee definition to unmarried partners.

15. Lin v. U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 494 F. 3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) - overrules

 
Gonzales-Camarillo, 21 I&N Dec. 937 (1997)  

alien deportable per INA §§ 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i) (post AEDPA) not eligible for 212(c) waiver whether requested alone or in conjunction with adjustment application

Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 485 F. 3d 193 (2d Cir. 2007) - upholds

 
J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976 (1997)  

A. Board will reopen sua sponte despite filing defects in motion only where there is an exceptional situation, not to cure filing defects or circumvent motions restrictions

B. Appeal or motion is deemed filed when received by the Board

A. 1. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) - cited generally with approval

Also see on need for exceptional circumstances, Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2001)

A. 2. Johnson v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 696 (3d Cir. 2002) - cites with approval

A. 3. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002 - cites with approval

A. 4. Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2008): defers to Board’s discretion; finds no jurisdiction to review.

B. Smith v. Connor, 250 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 4/25/01) - upholds

 
S-A-, 21 I&N Dec. 1050 (1997)  

Heavy traffic is not reasonable cause for failure to appear at exclusion hearing

De Jimenez v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 783 (8th Cir. 2004) - distinguished, because alien gave detailed description of a number of factors that caused the failure to appear

 
Dillingham, 21 I&N Dec. 1001 (1997), reversed (see cite)  

foreign expungement of foreign drug conviction not effective for immigration purposes, even if alien would have been eligible for first offender treatment here

Dillingham v. INS*, 267 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001) - reversed

 
Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec. 1025 (1997)  

BIA may grant MTR even if alien fails to submit application for relief in support of the motion where INS actually joins the motion: Board has authority to reopen even where there are technical deficiencies

1. Konstantinova v. INS, 195 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 1999) - cited with approval (and goes somewhat further)

2. Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) - generally cited for Board's power to reopen sua sponte

3. Lin v. Att’y Gen., 700 F.3d 683 (3d Cir. 2012) - cited

 
Collado-Munoz, 21 I&N Dec. 1061 (1998)  

Fleutidoctrine did not survive the passage of IIRIRA

1. Tineo v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 382 (3d Cir. 2003) - upholds

2. Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498(5th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

3. Vartelas v. Holder, 620 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2010) - grants Chevron deference

 
O-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1079 (1998)  

A. Presenting false ID can indicate overall lack of credibility

B. Use of false docs by asylum seeker for entry purposes does not necessarily show lack of credibility

A. 1. Kourski v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2004) - holds false ID can't be used against alien if he has no reason to know document is forged

A. 2. Selami v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 621 (6th Cir. 9/16/05) - agrees with reasoning

A. 3. Borovikova v. U.S. Department of Justice, 435 F.3d 151 (2nd Cir. 2006) - cites generally with approval

A. 4. Niang v. Mukasey, 511 F. 3d 138 (2d Cir. 2007): distinguishes where record fails to establish that the applicant knows or has reason to suspect document is false.

B. 1. Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951 (9th ir. 1999) - agrees with concept of two classifications of false documents

B. 2. Dong v. Gonzales , 421 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

 
Michel, 21 I&N Dec. 1101(1998)  

212(h) now available to ag fels only if they are non - lprs, not lprs

1. United States v. Arrieta, 224 F.3d 1076 (9thCir. 2000) - cited generally, but appears to accept Board ruling

2. Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) - findsno equal protection violation in allowing only non - lprs to get 212(h) relief

3. Moore v. Ashcroft, 251 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2001) - does not cite Michel, but findsno equal protection violation

4. Lukowski v. INS, 279 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. 2002) - accepts decision,finds no equal protection violation

5. Jankowski-Burczyk v. INS, 291 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2002) - accepts decision,finds no equal protection violation

6. DeLeon-Reynoso v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 633 (3d Cir. 2002) - accepts decision,finds no equal protection violation

7. Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 8/23/02) - does not cite Michel, but finds no equal protection violation

 
A-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 1106 (1998)  

Board generally defers to Immigration Judge credibility findings

1. Mayo v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 1/27/03, amended 6/25/03) - cited generally with approval

2. Litvinov v. Holder, 2010 WL 1994683 (8th Cir. 2010) - follows.

 
Y-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 1136 (1998)  

general, meager testimony not enough in asylum case, and the weaker the testimony, the greater the need for corroboration

1. Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2004) - distinguishes on facts

2. Mohamed v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

3. Kheireddine v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2005) cites generally with approval

4. Dehonzai v. Holder, 2011 WL 1988206 (1st Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.”

 
A-E-M-, 21 I&N Dec. 1157 (1998)  

reasonableness of fear of persecution reduced when family remains behind without difficulty

1. Aguilar-Solis v. INS, 168 F.3d 565 (1st Cir. 1999) - generally cited for rule regarding family left behind

2. Rios v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2002) - Without citing A - E - M - ,cautions that continuing safety of family members is a relevant factor in assessing fear, but not sufficient as basis for finding of no well - founded fear

3. Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and states that holding is not limited to cases where persecutor operates regionally

4. Boukhtouchen v. Gonzales, 498 F. 3d 78 (1st Cir. 2007) - cites generally with approval

5. Camara v. Att’y Gen’, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2836437 (3d Cir. 2009) - cites and distinguishes on facts

 
M-D-, 21 I&N Dec. 1180 (1998), remanded (see cite)  

failure to provide corroborating evidence where "reasonable to expect it" means failure to meet burden of proof in asylum case

1. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000) - corroboration req."disapproved" if credible testimony

2. Diallo v. INS*, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds corrob. req (though remands on facts)

3. Miah v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2003) - cites generally with approval

4. Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2004) - cites generally with approval


Return to top of the page


Volume 22
 
 Magallanes-Garcia, 22 I&N Dec. 1 (1998); overruled Ramos, 23 I&N 336 (2002)  

conviction under Az. law for aggravated driving while under the influence is conviction of a "crime of violence," and thus an ag fel

1. Tapia-Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2001) - generally cited, with approval

2. U.S. v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 92, reh. en banc denied (with dissent), 262 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2001) - without citing Magallanes,calls reasoning into question

3. Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2001) - rejectsdefinition of crime of violence

4. Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2001) - rejects definition of crime of violence

5. U.S. v Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) - in sentence enhancement case, findsDUI with injury to another not a crime of violence (does not actually cite Magallanes-Garcia)

6. Francis v. Reno, 269 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2001) - distinguished, because conviction here (under Pa. law) didnot involve DUI

 
O-Z- & I-Z-, 22 I&N Dec. 23 (1998)  

Board finds harassment of Jews on account of religion rose to the level of persecution - looked to cumulative effect of incidents

1. Abdille v.Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) - distinguished on facts

2. Voci v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 607 (3d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval and relies on

3. Ladyha v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4042122 (8th Cir. 2009) - cited favorably, distinguished on facts.

4. v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

 
J-P-, 22 I&N Dec. 33 (1998)  

headache not exceptional circumstance excusing failure to appear where no medical or other evidence to support claim

1. Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000) - upholds generally (but see B-A-S- case, below)

2. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites generally - finds asthma attack 4 days before hearing did not excuse failure to appear

 
B-A-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 57 (1998)  

sore foot not exceptional circumstance where alien did not submit affidavit from doctor or employer, or contact court immediately

1. Singh v. INS*, 213 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2000) - remands this precedent decision, finding Board imposed new requirements without notice

2. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2002) - cites generally, noting that here, no notice problems as in Singh (above) - asthma attack 4 days before hearing did not excuse failure to appear

 
X-G-W-, 22 I&N Dec. 71 (1998), superseded G-C-L- 23 I&N 359 (2002)  

Board reopens despite time and number restrictions where fundamental change in law (China population case)

1. Lucacela v. Reno, 161 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 1998) - generally cited for rule that Board can reopen sua sponte to serve interests of justice

2. Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) - generally cited for rule that Board can reopen sua sponte to serve interests of justice

 
Mancera-Monroy, 22 I&N Dec. 79 (1998)  

No time limit on MTR in absentia hearing where lack of notice of hearing is shown

Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

 
G-A-C-, 22 I&N Dec. 83 (BIA 1998)  

An asylum applicant who departed U.S. via advance parole and was paroled upon return under § 212(d)(5) of the Act, was properly placed into exclusion proceedings after denial of his asylum application and revocation of his parole.

1. Samirah v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4909464 (7th Cir. 2010) - cited.

 
Lei,22 I&N Dec. 113 (1998)  

Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not constitute an exception to 180 limit for filing MTR in an in absentia case

1. Behar v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2003) - upholds Board ruling

2. Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) - without citing Lei, holdsineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

3. Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) - without citing Lei, holdsineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

4. Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2002) - without citing Lei, holdsineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR

5. Borges v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2005) - holdsineff. assistance of counsel can toll time limits for in absentia MTR - distinguishes Bejar, above, saying only that time limit can be tolled, not that ineffective assistance is an exception to time limit

 
Punu, 22 I&N Dec. 224 (ID 3364)  

A. After IIRIRA, the third "finality" prong of Ozkok for determining if conviction exists, no longer exists

B. Deferred adjudication of guilt under Texas law where probation is imposed is a conviction for immigration purposes

A. Moosa v. INS, 171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999) - upholds Board

B. Griffiths v. INS, 243 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2001) - Board's holding a "permissible construction" of statute. "Guilty - filed" disposition under Mass. law can be a conviction for immigration purposes - but case remanded on facts.

 
G-N-C-, 22 I&N Dec. 281 (1998)  

A. Decision by INS to institute proceedings is not subject to review by Immigration Judge or Board.

B. Without discussion, applies IIRIRA's reinstatement of removal provisions § 241(a)(5) to alien who reentered prior to IIRIRA's effective date.

A. Cortez-Felipe v. INS, 245 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

B. 1. Castro-Cortez, et al. v. Reno, 239 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2001) - rejects application of the statute to such aliens

B. 2. Velasquez-Gabriel v. Crocetti, 263 F.3d 102 (4th Cir. 2001) - finds 241(a)(5) does apply to aliens who reenter prior to statute's effective date (does not cite G-N-C-)

B. 3. Bejjani v. INS, 271 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 2001) - rejects application of statute to such aliens (cites G-N-C- in footnote, noting Board did not address issue)

 
B-B-, 22 I&N Dec. 309 (1998)  

No ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel made tactical decision, and no egregious conduct

Saakian v. INS, 252 F.3d 21(1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, and distinguishes

 
N-M-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 312 (1998)  

A. asylum may be granted due to compelling circumstances despite no well - founded fear (though no compelling circumstances here)

B. Asylum applicant has burden to show new source of persecution if no longer well - founded fear from original source

A. 1. Lal v. INS, 255 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval, but finds Board did not properly apply decision in this case - finds grant of asylum under Chen does not require ongoing disability

A. 2. Brucaj v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval,but finds that decision didnot set forth specific types of evidence necessary for humanitarian asylum claims

B. 1. Hasalla v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

B. 2. Abrha v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 1072 (8th Cir. 2006) - cited with approval

1. Mehmeti v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 2009 WL 1789233 (11th Cir. 2009), cites;

2. Mambwe v. Holder, 572 F.3d 540 (8th Cir. 2009), cites

 
M-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 349)(1998)  

A. requirements for rescission of in absentia order not applicable to MTR that does not seek rescission

B. cannot deny discretionary relief without receiving oral notice of consequences of failure to appear

A. 1. Lopez v. INS, 184 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 1999) - cited with approval in footnote

A. 2. Wu v. INS, 436 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2006) - cited with approval and applies to relief available due to change in law

B. Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval

 
Lettman, 22 I&N Dec. 365 (1998), affirmed (see cite)  

alien convicted of ag fel subject to deportation regardless of date of conviction if placed in deportation proceedings on or after 3/1/91, and crime is within ag fel definition

1. Lettman v. INS*, 207 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2000) - affirmed

2. Lewis v. INS, 194 F.3d 539 (4th Cir. 1999) - upholds

3. Bell v. Reno, 218 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2000) - rejects Board and 11th and 4th Circuits' legal analysis, but agrees with conclusion that alien is deportable as ag fel

4. Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1172469 (9th Cir. 2010) - Rejects holding

5. Zivkovic v. Holder, 2013 WL 3942248 (7th Cir. 2013) – does not accord Chevron deference, and does not follow reasoning.

 
Palacios, 22 I&N Dec. 434 (1998)  

Alaska conviction for arson un first degree is crime of violence

Tran v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2005) - rejects, following Leocal v. Ashcroft, 125 S.Ct. 377 (2004), andalso distinguishes because Alaska statute had intent requirement and Pa. statute here does not.

 
S-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 458 (1999); strongly criticized Y-L-, A-G-, R-S-R-, 23 I&N 270 (AG2002)  

determination whether an alien convicted of an ag fel is barred from withholding due to PSC (where sentenced to less than 5 years) requires individual examination of the offense

Chong v. INS, 264 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2001) - cited with approval, and notes actual individual hearing on issue of PSCnot required

 
Ruiz-Romero, 22 I&N Dec. 486 (1999), affirmed (see cite)  

alien convicted of transporting illegal aliens within the U.S. subject to deportation as ag fel

1. Ruiz-Romero v. Reno*, 205 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2000) - affirmed

2. Barradas v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3014645 (7th Cir. 2009) - followed.

 
Roldan, 22 I&N Dec. 512 (1999), reversed in part (see cite)  

no effect to be given in immigration proceedings to expungements, etc.

1. Lujan-Armendariz v. INS and Roldan-Santoyo v. INS*, 222 F.3d 728 (9th 2000) - reversed, but only insofar as Board decision relates to Federal First Offenders Act or state counterparts

2. Herrera-Inirio v. INS, 208 F.3d (1st Cir. 2000) - upholds

3. Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2001) - distinguishes because sentence modification here, not expungement (and notes Roldan has been "called into question")

4. Murillo-Espinoza v. INS, 261F.3d 771(9th Cir. 2001) - upholds as "plausible" construction the Board's holding that state rehabilitative expungements will not be given effect (but see #1 above, for exception)

5. Vasquez-Velezmoro v. INS, 281 F.3d 693 (8th Cir. 2002) - upholds, and specifically declines to adopt reasoning of Lujan - Armendariz

6. Gill v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2003) - upholds, and specifically rejects Lujan - Armendariz(see #1 above)

7. Resendiz-Alcarez v. U.S. Attorney General,383 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2004) - upholds

8. Cruz-Garza v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2005) - upholds rationale, but finds conviction here was not a felony

9. U.S. v. Adame-Orozco, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2220592 (10th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

10. Wellington v. Holder, —F.3d —, 2010 WL 4103759 (2d Cir. 2010) - accords Chevron deference

 
Onyido, 22 I&N Dec. 552 (ID 3379) (1999)  

"Attempt," as used in section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Act is not limited to crimes formally called "attempts." Intent to defraud plus "substantial step" to commit fraud may be sufficient for attempt under (U).

1. Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2001) - accepts legal holding, but finds no substantial step here (i.e. distinguishes on facts)

2. Ljutica v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4349837 (2d Cir. 2009) - cites favorably.

 
Tijam, 22 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 1998  

Alien’s initial fraud or misrepresentation should be considered in making a discretionary determination on a fraud waiver

Parlak v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2581301 (6th Cir. 2009) - cited favorably

 
Cervantes - Gonzales, 22 I&N Dec. 560 (ID 3380) (1999),affirmed (see cite)  

IIRIRA amendment to 212(i), adding hardship requirement, applies to cases pending when IIRIRA was enacted

Cervantes-Gonzales v. INS,* 244 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2000) - affirmed

 
Rosas - Ramirez, 22 I&N Dec. 616 (1999)  

alien convicted of ag fel after adjustment of status is deportable as alien convicted of ag fel "after admission"

1. Shivaraman v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, finding that alien admitted as lawful nonimmigrant who later adjusts should not have the later adjustment date used as his "admission" date in determining if crime involving moral turpitude was within 5 years of admission

2. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005) - rejects Board reasoning

3. Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F. 3d 532 (5th Cir. 2008): rejects Board reasoning

 
Nolasco, 22 I&N Dec. 632 (1999)  

No continuous physical presence for suspension if OSC is served less than 7 years after entry

1. Appiah v. INS, 202 F.3d 704 (4th Cir. 2000) - upholds (finds stop - time rule constitutional)

2. Gonzalez-Torres, 213 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2000) - upholds (stop - time rule constitutional)

3. Rivera-Jimenez v. INS, 214 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2000) - upholds Nolasco, but remands on facts re: brief, casual and innocent departure

4. Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2000) - upholds

5. Ayoub v. INS, 222 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2000) - upholds (characterizes Gonzalez - Torres, above, as dicta)

6. Angel-Ramos v. INS, 227 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2000) - upholds

7. Ashki v. INS, 233 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 2000) - upholds

8. Rojas-Reyes v. INS, 235 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2000) - upholds

9. Bartoszewska-Zajac v. INS, 237 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and rejects equal protection arguments

10. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2001) - upholds

11. Guadalupe-Cruz v. INS, 240 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2001) - distinguished, because Immigration Judge incorrectly applied stop - time law before its effective date

12. Sad v. INS, 246 F.3d 811(6th Cir. 2001) - upholds, and also rejects retroactivity and equal protection arguments

13, Pinho v. INS, 249 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001) - upholds

14. See also Tefel v. Reno, 180 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 1999) - without citing Nolasco, finds stop - time rule constitutional

15. Aguirre v. Holder, 2013 WL 4531747 (1st Cir. 2013) - cited

 
L-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 645 (1999)  

determination whether an alien convicted of an ag fel is barred from withholding due to PSC (where sentenced to less than 5 years) requires individual examination of the offense

1. Chong v. INS, 264 F.3d 378 (3d Cir. 2001) - cited with approval, and notes actual individualhearing on issue of PSCnot required

2. Bosede v. Ashcroft, 309 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2002) - cited generally with approval

3. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)- upholds the criteria, but finds not followed in this case

 
Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 689 (1999)  

continuous physical presence for cancellation of removal ends on date offense is committed

1. Henry v. Ashcroft, 175 F.Supp. 2d 688 (S.D.N.Y 2001) - rejects, holding application of new IIRIRA provision to offense committed pre - IIRIRIA has improper retroactive effect

2. Sinotes-Cruz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2006) - rejects.

3. Reid v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 510 (2d Cir 2007)- follows

4. Zuluaga - Martinez v. INS, 523 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2008) - agrees, reaching same conclusion w/o affording Chevron deference.

5. Baraket v. Holder, 632 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2011) - agrees, relying on court’s earlier holdings w/o reaching issue of Chevron deference

 
Sweetser,22 I&N Dec. 709 (BIA 1999)  

where statute includes some offenses that are ag fels and some that are not, it is necessary to look at the record of conviction

1. Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2005) - cited with approval

2. Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 456 (5thCir. 2006) - cites with approval.

 
Alvarado-Alvino, 22 I&N Dec. 718 (1999)  

Ag fel under 101(a)(43)(N) includes only convictions under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), not § 1325(a)

Rivera-Sanchez v. Reno, 198 F.3d 545 (5th Cir. 1999) - upheld

 
H-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 728 (ID 3394) (1999); modified Velarde, 23 I&N 253 (2002)  

Arthur, 20 I&N Dec. 475 (1992), requiring approved visa petition prior to reopening for adjustment, survives regulations imposing MTR time limits (but Arthurmodified by Velarde, 23 I&N 253 (2002)

Balwinder Singh v. Quarantillo, 92 F.Supp. 2d 386 (D.N.J. 2000) - rejects Board majority and adopts dissent rationale

 
Ponce - Hernandez, 22 I&N Dec. 784 (1999)  

Form I - 213 is an inherently trustworthy, admissible document

1. Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 242 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites generally with approval

2. Barradas v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3014645 (7th Cir. 2009) - cites with approval.

 
R-S-J-, 22 I&N Dec. 863 (1999)  

false statements to asylum officer can constitute false testimony for purposes of 101(f)(6)

1. Ramos v. INS, 246 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2001) (8th Cir. 7/16/04) - cites with approval

2. Medina v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 2005) - upholds

 
Espinoza - Gonzales, 22 I&N Dec. 889 (BIA 1999)  

A conviction for misprision of felony under 18 U.S.C.§ 4 is not an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(S) of the Act.  Gives parameters for finding when a conviction is for an (S) crime.

1. Renteria - Morales v. Mukasey, 2008 WL   5192056 (9th Cir. 2008) (superseding 532 F.3d 949),accorded deference.

2. Denis v. Att’y Gen. Of US, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 223024 (3d Cir. 2011) - does not accord deference; interprets (S) agg fel more broadly

 
Ajami, 22 I&N Dec. 949 (1999)  

gives general crime involving moral turpitude defin as conduct that is vile, base, depraved, etc.

1. Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) - defin. cited generally with approval

2. Obasohan v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 479 F. 3d 785 (11th Cir. 2007)- cited with approval, but finds not followed where IJ relied on PSI and not actual conviction to determine ag fel

3. A. 2. Kellerman v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

4. Cano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 557171 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited

 
A-N- & R-M-G-, 22 I&N Dec. 953 (BIA 1999)   Applicants who establish changed conditions sufficient to warrant reopening of proceedings to apply for asylum need not demonstrate reasonable cause for failing to appear at prior exclusion hearing 1. Boika v. Holder, 2013 WL 4399231 (7th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably
 
Kanagasundram, 22 I. & N. Dec. 963 (1999)  

8 C.F.R. § 217.4(a)(1) applies to aliens refused admission under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, regardless of whether they are legitimately citizens or nationals of a VWPP - eligible country.

Bayo v. Napolitano, 593 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
L-V-K-, 22 I&N Dec. 976 (1999),vacated (see cite)  

A. motion to remand filed while appeal of denial of MTR proceedings that are administratively final is pending is untimely if filed more than 90 days after the final order

B. In absentia order becomes final when alien waives appeal or appeal time expires

A. 1. Konstantinova v. INS* (9th Cir. 4/3/00) - in unpublished order, without explanation, Board's precedent wasvacated. Earlier, published decision, at 195 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 1999), did not deal with Board's precedent decision

A. 2. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2001) - upholds and applies to case

A. 3. Krougliak v. INS, 289 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2002) - upholds

B. Kay v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Circuit. 2004) - cites with approval

 
Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 22 I&N Dec. 991 (1999)  

crime of indecency with a child by exposure under section 21.11(a)(2) of Texas law is sexual abuse of a minor and thus an ag fel

1. U.S. v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601(5th Cir. 2000) - upheld

2. Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 242 F.3d 727(7th Cir. 2001) - upholds(conviction was for "criminal sexual abuse" under Illinois law)

3. Emile v. INS, 244 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2001) - cites with approval(conviction was for indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 under Mass. law)

4. Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) - cites with approval

5. Mugalli v. Ashcroft, 258 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2001) - accords deference

6. Bahar v. Ashcroft, 264 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2001) - Cites with approval (conviction in N.C. for crime of taking indecent liberties with a minor)

7. Gattem v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval (Ill conviction for soliciting a minor)

8. Loeza-Dominguez v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 1156 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites with approvalBoard's "broad construction" of term "child abuse"

9. Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) - does not accord deference

10. Restrepo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 617 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2010) - accords Chevron deference.

11. Ganzhi v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3465604 (2d Cir. 2010) - cites

12. Oouch v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 257336 (2d Cir. 2011) - affirms Chevron deference accorded in prior decision;declines to concur w/ 9th Cir.

13. U.S. v. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2013) - cited

 
H-N-, 22 I&N Dec. 1039 (1999)  

IJs and the BIA have jurisdiction to adjudicate INA §209(c) waivers following initial denial by INS

Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007): cited with approval

 
Puente, 22 I&N Dec. 1006 (ID 3412) (1999);overruled Ramos, 23 I&N 336 (2002)  

conviction of driving while intoxicated under Texas law is a crime of violence and thus an ag fel

1. Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2001) - upholds Board decision as reasonable

2. U.S. v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921, reh. en banc denied (with dissent), 262 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2001) - without citing Puente,rejects holding

3. Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2001) - rejects

4. Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2001) - rejects definition of crime of violence

5. U.S. v Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001) - in sentence enhancement case, findsDUI with injury to another not a crime of violence (does not actually cite Puente)

 
Cruz-Garcia, 22 I&N Dec. 1155 (BIA 1999)  

1998 reg (8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(4)(iii)) creating time/number limits on reopening in absentia orders do not apply retroactively

1. Rodriguez-Manzano v. Holder, 2012 WL 34070 (5th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably and discussed.

 
K-V-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1163 (ID 3422) (1999), overruled, Yanez, 23 I&N 390 (2002)  

court interpretation of "ag fel" for sentence enhancement purposes does not control interpretation for immigration purposes

U.S. v. Hernandez-Avalos, 251 F.3d 505 (5th Cir. 2001) - rejects holding

 
Lopez - Meza, 22 I&N Dec. 1188 (1999)  

A. Arizona offense of aggravated DUI is a CIMT where the person knew he was prohibited from driving

B. Simple DUI, without more, is not a CIMT

A. Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects, finding statute is divisible and not all conduct covered by the statute is a CIMT

B. Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) - agrees with

 
Mendoza-Sandino, 22 I&N Dec. 1238 (2000)  

alien may not accrue 7 years continuous physical presence for suspension after service of OSC

1. Afolayan v. INS, 219 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2000) - upholds as reasonable interpretation ( see also Escudero - Corona v. INS, 244 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2001) - same result

2. McBride v. INS, 238 F.3d 371(5th Cir. 2001) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

3. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. 2001) - upholds

4. Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) - upholds

5. Okeke v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2005) - distinguishes, in case where alien departed U.S. after charging document issued and bases continuous physical presence on time after his return

 
S - V-, 22 I&N Dec. 1306 (2000)  

For CAT relief, govt must be "willfully accepting" of the torturous activities

1. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects, and holds that CAT's "acquiescence" requirement only requires that the govt. have "awareness" of the torture, not actual knowledge or willful acceptance of it

2. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir. 2004) - rejects reasoning, agrees with Zheng

3. Amir v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2006) - rejects reasoning

4. Silva-Rengifo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 473 F. 3d 58 (3d Cir. 2007) - rejects reasoning, agrees with Zheng and Khouzam

5. Ilic-Lee v. Mukasey, 507 F. 3d 1044 (6th Cir. 2007): cites

6. Rojas-Perez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2012) - cited

 
Rodriguez-Diaz, 22 I&N Dec. 1320 (2000)  

Unrepresented respondent’s acceptance of decision as final does not waive appeal rights where waiver was not clearly knowing.

1. Ali v. Mukasey, 525 F. 3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008) - follows, extends to represented respondents

2. Narine v. Holder, 2009 WL 580865 (4th Cir. 2009), discusses

3. U.S. v. Ramos, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3720208 (9th Cir. 2010) - cites

4. Kohwarien v. Holder, 2011 WL 754259 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

 
S-A-, 22 I&N Dec. 1328 (2000)  

persecution inflicted by family member can form basis for asylum claim

1. Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004) - cited with approval

2. Rahimzadeh v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2890998 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited and distinguished from facts of present case.

 
V-Z-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 1338 (2000)  

offense is "theft offense" under section 101(a)(43)(G) if there is intent to deprive owner of property, even if deprivation is less than total or permanent

1. Hernandez-Mancilla v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir. 2001) upholds (court dealt with Ill. crime of possession of stolen vehicle)

2. Abimbola v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2004) - upheld as reasonable.

3. Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General, 432 F.3d 1346 (11thCir. 2005) - cited with approval but finds conviction not an ag fel

4. Almeida v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4576067 (2d Cir. 2009) - reaffirms reasonableness.

5. Duenas-Alvarez v. Holder, 2013 WL 4417587 (9th Cir. 2013) – cites, follows

 
Perez, 22 I&N Dec. 1352 (2000)  

burglary of a vehicle not a "burglary offense" within section 101(a)(43)(G) ag fel definition

1. Ye v. INS, 214 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2000) - decided 3 days after Perez, reaches same conclusion

2. Lopez - Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2000) - decided a month before Perez, reaches same conclusion

 
Devison, 22 I&N Dec. 1362 (2001)  

NY adjudication as youthful offender is equiv. to federal juvenile delinquency determination and does not constitute conviction for immigration purposes

Uritsky v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2005) - agrees with, but distinguishes,in interpreting Michigan statute

 
Rodriguez - Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (2000)  

conviction that isvacated, not expunged, does not constitute conviction for immigration purposes

1. Sandoval v. INS, 240 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2001) - generally cited, with approval

2. Johnson v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2004) - generally cited, with approval

3. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Bahta, 22 I&N Dec. 1381 (2000)  

conviction for attempted possession of stolen property is conviction of receipt of stolen property, and a theft offense and thus an ag fel

1. U.S. v.Vasquez-Flores,265 F.3d 1122 (10th Cir. 2001) - generally upholds specifically adopts 7th Circuit reasoning in Hernandez-Mancilla (see below) - sentencing enhancement case

2. Hernandez-Mancilla v. INS, 246 F.3d 1002 (7th Cir. 2001) - generally upholds, but reads "theft offense" somewhat more broadly (court dealt with Ill. crime of possession of stolen vehicle)

 
Davis, 22 I&N Dec. 1411 (2000),affirmed (see cite)  

Alien is ineligible for 212(c) if served more than 5 years in prison, even if AEDPA section 440(d) does not apply

1. Toia v. Fasano, 334 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects (without actually citing), finding 5 - year bar does not apply to aliens who pleaded guilty prior to 1990 Act, and who are otherwise eligible

2. Davis v. Ashcroft, 2003 WL 289624 (S.D.N.Y. 2/10/03) affirmed (but not reported in F.Supp. 2d)

 
Vasquez-Muniz, 22 I&N Dec. 1415 (ID 3440) (2000); overruled Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N 207 (2002)  

Possession of firearm by felon under Calif. law is not an ag fel.

United States v. Castillo - Rivera, 244 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) - without citing Board ID, reaches opposite conclusion (case involves same Calif. law) - finds it is an ag fel.


Return to top of the page


Volume 23
 
Crammond, 23 I&N Dec. 9 (2001) vacated, 23 I&N Dec. 179(2001)  

conviction for sexual abuse of a minor must be for felony offense to be ag fel under 101(a)(43)(A), but decision vacated

Guerrero-Perez v. INS, 256 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2001) - rejects (holds it could be misdemeanor offense)

 
Monreal, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001)  

“Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” = hardship substantially beyond what would ordinarily result from alien’s removal, but need not be unconscionable.

1. Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 2011 WL 3130273 (7th Cir. 2011) – dismisses constitutional challenge to Board’s holding.

 
Patino, 23 I&N Dec. 74 (BIA 2001)  

Party wishing to challenge validity of an appeal waiver may file either motion to reconsider w/ IJ or direct appeal to BIA

Lemus-Reyes v. Holder, 2011 WL 679344 (5th Cir. 2011) - cited favorably for propositions that (1) IJ retains jurisdiction until appeal filed w/ BIA; and (2) due to tactical differences bet. motion to IJ and appeal to BIA, choice is left to filing party.

 
Torres-Varela, 23 I&N Dec. 78 (2001)  

Arizona conviction for aggravated DUI with two or more priors is not CIMT

Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval, on holding that where statute is divisible, must determine whether all conduct covered by the statute is a CIMT

 
Rojas, 23 I&N Dec. 117 (BIA 2001)   Alien released from criminal custody after the expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules is subject to mandatory detention under § 236(c) of the I&N Act, even if not immediately taken into INS custody upon release. 1. Sylvain v. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1715304 (3d Cir. 2013) - discussed
 
Rodriguez-Tejedor, 23 I&N Dec. 153 (2001)  

person who was over 18 on effective date of Child Citizenship Act of 2000 not eligible for automatic citizenship

1. Hughes v. Ashcroft, 255 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2001) - without citing,reaches same conclusion

2. Nehme v. INS, 252 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2001) - without citing,reaches same conclusion

3. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2005) - follows

 
Song, 23 I&N Dec.173 (2001)  

where state court vacates sentence and resentences alien to less than 1 year, not ag fel conviction

Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

 
G-Y-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 181 (2001)  

in absentia order inappropriate where alien did not receive, or cannot be charged with receiving, NTA

1. Dominguez v. INS, 284 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2002) - without citing Board case,calls holding into question - notice to last address formally provided is sufficient

2. Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F. 3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2007): followed

 
Moraga, 23 I&N Dec. 195  

Child born out of wedlock in El Salvador on/after 12/16/65 is legally equivalent to child born in wedlock once paternity established; qualifies as legitimated child under INA § 101(b)(1)(C).

1. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses and follows.

 
Vasquez-Muniz, 23 I&N Dec. 207 (BIA 2002)  

A. A state or foreign offense may qualify as an agg fel as an offense described in a federal statute, even if it lacks the jurisdictional element of the federal statute.

B. Possession of a firearm by a felon under California law is an agg fel.

1. Negrete-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 518 F. 3d 497 (7th Cir. 2008): upholds as reasonable interpretation

2. Spacek v. Holder, 2012 WL 3079216 (8th Cir. 2012) - cited

 
Salazar, 23 I&N Dec. 223 (BIA 2002)  

A. Deferral of adjudication of guilt under Tez. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 42.12, § 5(a) following guilty plea to possession of controlled substance held to be a conviction .  B. Board will not apply Lujan-Armandirez v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) outside of 9th Cir.  C.  In light of Circuit Court. case law, Board will not apply Matter of K-V-D- in cases arising in the 5th Cir.

B. 1. Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 2011 WL 2714159 (9th Cir. 2011) – agrees, adopts prospectively.

 
Velarde-Pacheco, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (2002)  

MTR for adjustment based on marriage that occurred after alien was in proceedings may be granted without visa petition approval in some limited circumstances

1. Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2003) - cited with approval, upholding denial of motion for failure to make prima facie showing of valid marriage

2. Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir., 2006) - cites with approval.

3. Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F. 3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007): interprets as a MTR may be granted when certain factors are present, but does not necessarily hold that motion must be denied in the absence of any one factor.

4. Melnitsenko v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 42 (2d Cir. 2008): modifies holding in that Board cannot deny motion based solely on the fact of the DHS’s objection; if Board denies on the merits of such objection, it must provide adequate reasoning.

5. Ahmed v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4925056 (9th Cir. 2008) clarifies/modifies Board cannot solely deny motion due to DHS opposition.

6. Yepremyan v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3122871 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited and distinguished from facts of present case.

7. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably

 
Y-L-, A-G-, R-S-R-, 23 I&N Dec. 270 (A.G. 2002)  

A. CAT protection requires that the torture be inflicted "under color of law"

B. Ag. fels. involving drug trafficking are presumptively particularly serious crimes

A. 1. Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2003) - rejects, and holds that CAT's "acquiescence" requirement only requires that the govt. have "awareness" of the torture, not actual knowledge or willful acceptance of it

A. 2. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) - disapproves of requirement of official "consent or approval" of torture

B. 1. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2005) - applies presumption, but remands to give alien chance to rebut

B. 2. Lavira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F. 3d 158 (3rd Cir. 2007): follows, but finds likely factual error by IJ.

B. 3. Miguel-Miguel v. Gonzales, 500 F. 3d 941 (9th Cir. 2007) - upholds presumption, but finds error in retroactive application by BIA; remands.

 
J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291 (2002)  

A. substandard prison conditions in Haiti do not constitute torture where no evidence authorities create and maintain such conditions to inflict torture

B. Torture must be by or with consent or acquiescence of public official who has custody or physical control of victim

C. Detaining returning criminals is lawful sanction as Haiti has right to protect its citizens from criminals

D. Torture must be intentionally inflicted

A. 1. Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) - distinguishes

A. 2. Saint Fort v. Ashcroft, 223 F.Supp.2d 343 (D. Mass. 2002) - distinguishes on facts, finding Board did not consider evidence presented

A. 3. Elien v Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2004) - upholds generally, but notes that respondent had not shown that torture is widespread in Haitian prisons

A. 4. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2004) - upholds

A. 4. Khouzam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2004) - distinguishes, because Board has found widespread torture in Egypt's prison (and warns that J-E- was cited by the Board in this case for a broader, and erroneous, proposition)

A. 5. Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

A. 6. Theagene v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2005) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

A. 7. Ridore v. Holder, 2012 WL 4513230 (9th Cir. 2012) – distinguished due to evidence of worsened conditions.

B. Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) - rejects holding that public official must have custody or physical control of victim

B. 2. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F. 3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007)- rejects reasoning, follows Azanor.

C. 1. Elien v Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2004) - upheld (but notes indefinite detention might not be lawful)

C. 2. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2004) - upholds (even if indefinite detention)

D. 1. Alemu v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2005) - cites generally with approval

A - D. Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) - Upholds all parts of J - E - and finds part of Zubeda, above, dicta

A, D: Lavira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 478 F. 3d 158 (3rd Cir. 2007): follows, citing Auguste, but distinguishes where prison conditions intentionally used to inflict pain and suffering on individual applicant.

 
Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 336 (2002)  

DUI a crime of violence under § 16(b) only if committed at least recklessly and involves substantial risk force will be used

1. Omar v. INS, 298 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2002) - distinguishes from conviction under Minn. law for criminal vehicular homicide

2. U.S. v. Lucio-Lucio, 347 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2003) - cites with approval

3. Leocal v. Ashcroft, 125 S. Ct. 377 (2004) - reserves question of DUI as crime of violence where statute requires proof of recklessconduct, but finds DUI that causes serious bodily injury is not a crime of violence

 
G-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 366 (2002)  

In ruling on CAT claim, should consider relevant country conditions

Mostafa v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, but finds Board did not apply case

 
Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002)  

aliens convicted of violent or dangerous criminal acts will not be allowed to adjust their status under §§ 1159(c) except in extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security or foreign policy considerations, or cases in which an alien clearly demonstrates that the denial of status adjustment would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

1. Jean v. Gonzales*, 452 F.3d 392, 396 (5th Cir.2006) - affirms.

2. Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2006) - upholds.

3. Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2006) - upholds.

 
Yanez-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 390 (2002)  

whether state drug offense is drug trafficking crime ag fel shall be decided based on circuit law

1. Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2004) - cites with approval, and follows 2d and 3d Circuits in finding state felony drug poss conviction that would be misd under federal law is not ag fel

2. Liao v. Rabbett, 398 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 2005) - cites generally,and finds felony drug conviction not ag fel where not punishable under state law by imprisonment for more than 1 year

3. Tostado v. Carlson, 437 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2006) - cites generally, andfinds Illinois conviction that is felony under state law but not federal law is ag felfor immigration purposes

4. Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. September 26, 2006) - cites with approval.

5. 1. Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, (2006) - clarifies, adopts hypothetical federal felony approach - federal state offense that is a felony under state law but a misdemeanor under the Controlled Substances Act [CSA] is not a "felony punishable under the CSA" and therefore not an aggravated felony within the meaning of section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act.

2. Smith v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2006), follows hypothetical federal felony approach

 
Romalez, 23 I&N Dec. 423 (2002)  

for cancellation, cont. physical presence ends with departure made under threat of institution of deportation or removal proceedings

1. Vasquez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 315 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2003), amended 343 F.3d 961 - upheld

2. Mirales-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2003) - upheld

3. Palomino v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2004) - upheld

4. Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2004) - distinguished, where alien was simply turned back at the border

5. Ortiz-Cornejo v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 610 (8th Cir. 2005) - distinguished, where alien was simply turned back at the border

6. Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General of the United States, 428 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2005) - agrees with,and applies where alien got permission to withdraw application for admission to U.S.

7. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

8. Ascencio-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2010 WL 535791 (2d Cir. 2010) - accords deference.

9. Vasquez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 522843 (1st Cir. 2011) - accords deference

10. Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder, 2011 WL 2725813 (7th Cir. 2011) – discusses and follows.

 
Small, 23 I&N Dec. 448 (2002)  

offense is not a crime of violence if it does not involve as an element the use of violent or destructive physical force

Chrzanoski v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2003) - cited generally with approval

 
Martin, 23 I&N Dec. 491 (2002)  

third degree assault under Connecticut law is a crime of violence and thus an ag fel

1. Chrzanoski v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 188 (2d Cir. 2003) - rejected: offense found not to be crime of violence

2. Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 666, (7th Cir. 2003) - rejects, and finds Indiana battery conviction not a crime of violence

3. Singh v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2004) - distinguishes because Martin dealt with state stature that required intent to inflict physical injury

 
Gomez-Gomez, 23 I&N Dec. 522 (BIA 2002)  

The INS met its burden in an in absentia removal proceeding of establishing a minor respondent's removability where (1) a Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien (Form I - 213) was submitted, documenting the respondent's identity and alienage, the respondent made no challenge to the admissibility of the Form I - 213, and there were no grounds for a finding that that admission of the Form I - 213 would be fundamentally unfair.

Almeida-Amaral, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

 
Mejia-Andino, 23 I&N Dec. 533 (2002)  

Service of notice of hearing for minor under 14 must be made on near relative - service on uncle not sufficient where service of parent possible

1. Flores-Chavez v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2004) - without mentioning case, appears to modify to cover minors up to age 18

2. Nolasco v. Holder, 2011 WL 668035 (2d Cir. 2011) - distinguishes

 
Koloamatangi, 23 I&N Dec. 548 (BIA 2003)  

an alien who acquired permanent resident status through fraud or misrepresentation has never been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a) (2000).

1. Savoury v. Atty. Gen., 449 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval.

2. Kim v. Holder, 2009 WL 775560 (8th Cir. 2009),discusses

3. Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2605859 (7th Cir. 2010) - discusses and affirms no lawful admission where “not otherwise entitled to” LPR status.

4. Gallimore v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 619 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2010) - defers to Board’s reasoning

 
Assaad, 23 I&N Dec. 553 (BIA 2003)  

Following circuit case law to permit constitutionally - based claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in immigration proceedings. 

1. Rafiyev v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 853 (8th cir. 2008), disagrees in part - noFifth Amend. right to effective counsel

2. Afawni v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 788 (4th Cir. 2008), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

3. Magala v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2005), disagrees in part - no constitutional ineffective assistance doctrine

 
Navas-Acosta, 23 I&N Dec. 586 (2003)  

person can become "national" of the U.S. only by birth or naturalization, not by filing oath of allegiance with natz application

1. Perdomo-Padilla v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2003) - agrees with holding

2. Salim v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 307 (3d Cir. 2003) - agrees with holding

3. Sebastian-Soler v. U.S. Attorney General, 409 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2005) - agrees with

4. Marquez-Almanzar v. INS, 418 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2005) - agrees with

5. Abou-Haider v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 206 (st Cir. 2006) - agrees with holding

 
Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I&N Dec. 590 (2003)  

Conviction under petty offense exception of 212(a)(2)(A) does not render alien ineligible for cancellation of removal under § 240A(b).

Vasquez-Hernandez v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2010) - Finds inapplicable in 237(a)(2) context, and disagrees with holding even in 212(a)(2)(A) context.

 
Y-T-L-, 23 I&N Dec. 601 (2003)  

where past pers. is shown based on forced sterilization or abortion, presumption of future pers. is not rebutted on theory that no further threat is faced

1. Qu v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) - upholds, as to both asylum and withholding

2. Cao v. U.S. Department of Justice, 421F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval

3. Zhang v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 993 (7th Cir. 2006) - extends holding to man whose wife was forced to have abortion, even where marriage was not recognized in China, and couple is no longer together

 
Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (2003)  

If conviction vacated solely for rehabilitation or immigration reasons, alien remains convicted for immigration purposes

1. Pickering v. Gonzales*, 465 F.3d 263 (6th Cir. 2006), agrees with holding but reverses because Board erroneously evaluated evidence.

2. Ali v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2005) - finds Board's construction reasonable and defers to it

3. Rumierz v. Gonzales, 456 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. August 3, 2006) - cites with approval

4. Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir.2006) - follows

5. Puello v. BCIS, 511 F. 3d 324 (2d Cir. 2007): cites with approval

6. Saleh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2007)follows as reasonable.

7. Estrada-Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2605859 (7th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Cisneros-Gonzalez, 23 I&N Dec. 668 (2004)  

Service of charging document in prior proceedings does not end continuous physical presence with regard to cancellation application filed in later proceedings

Okeke v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2005) - cites with approval, and applies to case where alien lawfully reentered U.S. after becoming inadmissible, finds clock restarted after the reentry (no separate charging documents in this case)

 
Azurin, 23 I&N Dec. 695 (BIA 2005)  

Reaffirms Gabryelsky (20 I&N Dec. 750)

1. Pacua v. Holder, 2011 WL 102443 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
Blake, 23 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 2005)  

alien convicted of sexual abuse of a minor and removable as an ag fel under INA §101(a)(43)(A) ineligible for 212(c) because no counterpart ground of inadmissibility under §212(a)

1. Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007)- cites with approval

2. Avilez-Granados v. Gonzales, 481 F. 3d 869 (5th Cir. 2007)- follows

3. Vo v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 363 (5th Cir. 2007)- cites with approval

4. Blake v. Carbone, 489 F. 3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007): reversed.Rejected Board’s “similar language” approach to determining statutory counterpart; holds if offense would render an LPR excludable, than 212(c) is available in deportation proceedings.

5. Ikharo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3001756 (6th Cir. 2010) - upheld Board’s ability to apply outside of 2d Cir.

6. Rangel-Zuazo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 285214 (9th Cir. 2011) - upheld BIA’s retroactive application, as holding did not constitute a change in law.

7. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) - discussed without ultimately ruling on validity.

8. Lawal v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 718444 (11th Cir. 2013) – Found invalid under Judulang v. Holder, --- U.S. ---, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011)

 
Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (2005)  

alien may be removable for committing one crime involving moral turpitude within 5 years ofany admission, including date a previously admitted alien is adjusted to permanent residence status

1. Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2005) - does not cite Shanu (which was decided shortly before court decision), butrejects reasoning

2. *Aremu v. DHS, 450 F.3d 578 (4th Cir. 2006): reversed; Rejects Board’s reasoning that “adjustment of status” can constitute an admission where a prior admission occurred .

 
Brieva - Perez, 23 I&N Dec. 766 (BIA 2005)  

alien who is removable on the basis of his conviction for a crime of violence is ineligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) because the aggravated felony ground of removal with which he was charged has no statutory counterpart in the grounds of inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act.

1. Kim v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2006) - cites with approval.

2. Caroleo v. Gonzales, 476 F. 3d 158 (3d Cir. 2007)- cites with approval

3. Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales, 483 F. 3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007): cites with approval

4. Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales, 482 F. 3d 356 (5th Cir. 2007): affirmed;

5. Blake v. Carbone*, 489 F. 3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007): rejectsBoard’s “similar language” analysis to determine 212(c) eligibility in deportation proceedings

6. Thap v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4568361 (6th Cir. 2008),follows

7. Van Don Nguyen v. Holder, 571 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2009),rejects re aggravated felony finding

8. Mancillas-Ruiz v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3156544 (7th Cir. 2010) - follows

9. Paulo v. Holder, 2011 WL 1663572 (9th Cir. 2011) - discussed without ultimately ruling on validity.

10. Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) – abrogated holding

 
A-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 774 (A.G. 2005)  

“Danger to the security of the United States” means any nontrivial risk to U.S. defense, foreign relations or economic interests; there are “reasonable grounds for regarding” an alien as a danger to the national security where there is information that would permit a reasonable person to believe that s/he may pose such a danger.

1. Yusopov v. Atty. Gen., 518 F. 3d 185 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2008): rejects latter interpretation–“may pose a danger” not found consistent with statutory language “is a danger”

2. Malkandi v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4276912 (9th Cir. 2008),rejects in part (finds alien must “actually” pose a danger rather than “may”).

 
Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I&N Dec. 793 (2005)  

cancellation application is continuing application, so good moral character is calculated backward from date application is finally adjudicated by Immigration Judge or Bd.

1. Cuadra v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 947( 8th Cir. 2005) - does not cite (probably not aware of), but rejects reasoning, and holds good moral character must be demonstrated for the time period required, as measured backward from date application is filed

2. Duron-Ortiz v. Holder, 2012 WL 4856495 (7th Cir. 2012) – accords deference.

 
Avilez-Nava, 23 I&N Dec. 799 (2005)  

no break in continuous physical presence where refused admission at port of entry, without threat of being placed in proceedings

1. Morales-Morales v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2004) - without citing, agrees with, where alien was simply turned back at the border

2. Reyes-Vasquez v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2005) - without citing, agrees with, where alien was simply turned back at the border

3. Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2005) - cites generally, may go further, indicating break in presence occurs where there is formal agreement with the govt where terms of departure specified

4. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 2006) - distinguished

5. Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4241586 (9th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

6. Vasquez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 522843 (1st Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder, 2011 WL 2725813 (7th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

 
Perez Vargas, 23 I&N Dec. 829 (2005)  

IJs lack authority to determine continued validity of employment - based visas under INA §204(j) after alien changes job or employer

1. Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales*, 478 F. 3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007): reverses, holds IJs have such jurisdiction

2. Sung v. Keisler, 505 F. 3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007): without citing, follows Perez-Vargas v. Gonzales holding of 4th Cir. and finds IJ has jurisdiction over §204(j) determinations

 
Smriko, 23 I&N Dec. 836 (2005)  

Removal proceedings may be commenced against an alien who was admitted to the United States as a refugee under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1157 (2000), without prior termination of the alien’s refugee status.

1. Romanishyn v. Atty. Gen'l of U.S., 455 F.3d 175, 185 (3d Cir.2006) - upholds.

2. Kaganovich v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006 - upholds.

 
Torres-Garcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (2006)  

A. An alien who reenters the U.S. after removal is inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), even where s/he obtained permission to reapply for admission prior to the illegal reentry.

B. One barred under such section is ineligible for a waiver until 10 yrs. from the last departure from the U.S.

1. Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008): cites favorably

2. Delgado v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2008), accords deference

3. Gonzalez-Balderas v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 743947 (7th Cir. 2010) - cites with approval

4. Gonzales v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007) - accords deference

5. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2012 WL 5077137 (9th Cir. 2012) – cited and discussed

 
Adamiak, 23 I&N Dec. 878 (2006)  

A conviction vacated for failure of the trial court to advise the alien defendant of the statutorily required possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes.

1. Alim v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2006) - cites with approval

2. Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2899024 (11th Cir. 2010) - cited favorably.

 
Alcantara-Perez, 23 I&N Dec. 882 (2006)  

A. When the BIA remands for completion of background checks and new info that may affect eligibility is revealed, the IJ has discretion as to whether to conduct additional hearings before entering order.

B. If checks reveal no new info after remand, IJ should enter order granting relief.

Vakker v. Atty. Gen., 519 F. 3d 143 (3d Cir. 2008): cites favorably

 
C-C-, 23 I&N Dec. 889 (2006)  

alien seeking to reopen removal proceedings based on a claim that the birth of a second child in the United States will result in the alien’’s forced sterilization in China cannot establish prima facie eligibility for relief where the evidence submitted with the motion and the relevant country conditions reports do not indicate that Chinese nationals returning to that country with foreign - born children have been subjected to forced sterilization in the alien’s home province.

1. Chen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 468 F.3d 109 (2nd Cir. 2006) - distinguished, relying on documents submitted by alien and documents from China submitted in another case.

2. Yu v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 513 F. 3d 346 (3d. Cir. 2008): follows

3. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F. 3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

4. Lin v. Holder, 620 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2010) - cites with approval

 
J-F-F-, 23 I&N Dec. 912 (A.G. 2006)  

An applicant for CAT deferral of removal cannot establish eligibility by stringing together a series of suppositions where evidence does not establish that each hypothetical event in the chain is more likely than not to occur.

Savchuk v. Mukasey, 518 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008): cites favorably

 
Wang, 23 I&N Dec. 924 (2006)  

One who entered U.S. EWI is not eligible to adjust under CSPA, and cannot later move to amend or renew under INA §245(i).

Ri Kai Lin v. BCIS, 514 F. 3d 251 (2d Cir. 2008): follows, finding Board’s holding reasonable.

 
C-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951 (2006)  

non - criminal informants working against the Cali drug cartel in Colombia are not members of a particular social group

1. Castillo-Arias v. U.S. Attorney General*, 446 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2006) - affirmed

2. Pavlyk v. Gonzales, 469 F.3d 1082 (7th Cir., December 4, 2006) - cites with approval.

3. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F. 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007): follows

4. Malonga v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4763453 (8th Cir. 2008),cites with approval

5. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited.

6. Ayala v. Holder, 2011 WL 1886391 (9th Cir. 2011) - accords deference.

7. v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 5903780 (3d Cir. 2011) –distinguishes in footnote.

8. Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) – cites, applies holding.

9. Beltrand-Alas v. Holder, 2012 WL 3537840 (1st Cir. 2012) – upheld requirements as reasonable

10. Gashi v. Holder, 702 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2012) - cited

11. Cordoba v. Holder, 2013 WL 4055590 (9th Cir. 2013) – interpreted “social visibility” to mean “understood by others to constitute social groups.”

 
Rowe, 23 I&N Dec. 962  

Sole means of legitimizing child born out of wedlock in Guyana is marriage of parents; where parents never married, respondent not ineligible for derivative citizenship under INA former § 321(a)(3).

1. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses, distinguishes

 
Sanudo, 23 I&N Dec. 968 (2006)  

A. An alien’s conviction for domestic battery in violation of sections 242 and 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code does not qualify categorically as a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” within the meaning of section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) (2000).

B. In removal proceedings arising within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the offense of domestic battery in violation of sections 242 and 243(e)(1) of the California Penal Code does not presently qualify categorically as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 16 (2000), such that it may be considered a “crime of domestic violence” under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act.

Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 - F.3d 1054 C.A.9,2006 - cites with approval.

A. Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2006) - follows.

 
Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. 990 (2006)  

A. BIA lacks authority to extend the 30 - day time limit for filing appeals.

B. A short delay by an overnight delivery service does not warrant consideration of an untimely appeal by certification under 8 C.F.R. § 1001.3(c).

A. 1. Irigoyen - Briones v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3085999 (9th Cir. 2009) - afforded deference.


Return to top of the page


Volume 24
 
S-L-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 1 (2006)overruled, J-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 520 (A.G. 2008)  

One whose spouse was forcibly aborted or sterilized can establish past persecution on account of a political opinion if legally married and opposed to abortion/sterilization at time of coercive action.

1. Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen’l, 491 F. 3d 100 (3d Cir. 2007) - followsas reasonable;

2. Lin v. U.S. Dept. Of Justice, 494 F. 3d 296 (2d Cir. 2007) - overrules

3. Yang v. U.S. Att’y Gen’l, 494 F. 3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2007) - affirmed

 
Guerra, 24 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2006)  

In bond hearings, IJs have broad discretion in deciding factors and evidence to consider in determining danger alien may pose.

1. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 1226379 (1st Cir. 2011) - cites favorably and discusses

 
S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 42 (2006)  

Provisions of the REAL ID Act only apply to asylum applications originally filed (not renewed) on or after 5/11/05.

1. R.K.N. v. Holder, 701 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2012) – discussed and followed

 
Diaz-Ruacho, 24 I&N Dec. 47 (BIA 2006)  

Alien who fails to post VD bond under INA § 240B(b)(3) is not subject to penalties for failure to timely depart.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited and discussed.

 
O-S-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2006)  

Outlines requirements for motions to reconsider a decision of the BIA.

1. Huang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3489543 (3d Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

2. Agyei v. Holder, 2013 WL 4618389 (1st Cir. 2013) - cited

 
Moncada, 24 I&N Dec. 62 (BIA 2007)  

INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i)’s exception for possession of under 30 g. of marijuana for personal use does not apply to convictions where statute requires such possession to take place in a prison setting.

Rodriguez v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2010) - agrees with Board’s holding.

 
A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I&N Dec. 69 (2007)  

“Affluent Guatemalans” is not a particular social group due to (1) lack of sufficient social visibility to be perceived as a group by society, and (2) lack of sufficient particularity in its definition.

1. Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey*, 509 F. 3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007): affirmed

2. Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511F. 3d 940 (9th Cir. 2007): followed

3. Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, — F.3d —, 2008 WL 2630085 (8th Cir. 2008) - follows

4. Faye v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2767302 (1st Cir. 2009) - followed

5. Perdomo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2721524 (9th Cir. 2010) - cited.

6. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Rojas-Perez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2012) – cited

8. De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 2013 WL 1705972 (8th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
Avila-Perez, 24 I&N Dec. 78 (BIA 2007)  

INA § 201(f), allowing beneficiaries of IR visa petitions to retain “child” status after turning 21, applies to one whose visa petition was approved before the 8/6/02 effective date of CSPA, but who filed for adjustment after such date.

1. Arobelidze v. Holder, 2011 WL 3132459 (7th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

 
Zmijewska,24 I&N Dec. 87 (2007)  

A. BIA lacks authority to apply equitable exception to avoid penalty for failing to depart per INA § 240B(d)(1).

B. No failure to depart where alien unaware of VD order or physically unable to depart.

1. Lubale v. Gonzales, 484 F. 3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2007) - cites favorably

2. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 2899607 (9th Cir. 2011) – discusses favorably.

3. Romer v. Holder, 2011 WL 6144908 (1st Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

 
Acosta-Hidalgo, 24 I&N Dec. 103 (2007)  

A. Matter of Cruz (15 I&N Dec. 236) reaffirmed.

B. Adjudication of naturalization petition by DHS while removal proceedings are pending is not an affirmative communication of prima facie naturalization eligibility.

1. Hernandez de Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F. 3d 927 (9th Cir. 2007) - upholds as “not plainly erroneous”

2. Periello v. Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135 (2d Cie. 2009) – upholds.

3. Zegrean v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1443197 (3d Cir. 2010) - accords deference

4. Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2010) - upholds

5. Barnes v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4486599 (4th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

6. Shewchun v. Holder, 2011 WL 3926378 (6th Cir. 2011) – upholds. 

7. Solis-Chavez v. Holder, 2011 WL 5041916 (7th Cir. 2011) – discusses; remands for BIA to address.

 
Gertsenshyteyn, 24 I&N Dec. 111 (2007)  

The categorical approach does not apply to determining whether a criminal offense was committed for commercial advantage and thus qualifies as an aggravated felony under 101(a)(43)(K) of the Act.

Gertsenshteyn v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 137(2d Cir. 2008),overruled

 
Tobar - Lobo, 24 I&N Dec. 142 (2007)  

Willful failure to register by a sex offender per California Penal Code section 290(g)(1) is a CIMT.

1. Placencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008): rejects reasoning, holding that the mere failure to register as a sex offender cannot constitute morally turpitudinous behavior.

2. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4746189 (7th Cir. 2010) - not accorded deference; applied now obsolete categorical approach

 
Y-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 151 (2007)  

Sets out criteria for making a frivolous finding under INA section 208(d)(4)(A).

1. Kalilu v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 777 (9th Cir. 2008): cites favorably; remands for consideration under criteria of Y-L-.

2. Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2008) - adopts analytical framework set out by BIA.

3. Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably, remanded due to IJ’s failure to comply with.

4. Liu v. Holder, 2011 WL 635276 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, remands due to IJ’s failure to comply with

 
T-Z-, 24 I&N Dec. 163 (2007)  

A. An abortion is deemed forced by threatened harm where such harm, if carried out, would be severe enough to constitute persecution.

B. Severe nonphysical forms of harm may constitute persecution.

A. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F. 3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) - questions whether holding is overly narrow, but does not need to resolve issue as harm suffered falls satisfied Board’s interpretation.

B. 1. Chen v. Gonzales, 489 F. 3d 861 (7th Cir. 2007) - cites;

B. 2. Makatengkeng v. Gonzales, 495 F. 3d 876 (8th Cir. 2007) - ct. stated it may revisit standard in proper case, but not necessary here, as claimed harm clearly fell short of persecution.

B. 3. Lin v. Mukasey, 532 F. 3d 596, 2008 (7th Cir. 2008) - cites

B. 4. Vicente-Elias v. Mukasey, 532 F. 3d 1086, (10th Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

B. 5. Mirisawo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 963200 (4th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

B. 6. Vincent v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 499278 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites

B. 7. v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably.

B. 8. Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2014 WL 1012951 (11th Cir. 2014) – cites favorably.

 
J-W-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 185 (2007)  

(1) Evidence did not establish a Chinese government policy of forced sterilization for second child born abroad.

(2) Although some sanctions may apply for second births abroad, evidence did not establish these would rise to the level of persecution.

1. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F. 3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

2. Zheng v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 2008),cited favorably

3. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008),upheld

4. Lin v. Holder, 620 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2010) - cites with approval

5. Zheng v. Holder, 701 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) – cited

 
J-H-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 196 (BIA 2007)  

A person who gives birth to two or more children in China may qualify as a refugee if he/she established that the births are a violation of family planning policies and would be punished by local officials in a way giving rise to a well - founded fear

1. Shao v. Mukasey,546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) - upheld

2. Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2014 WL 1012951 (11th Cir. 2014) – cites favorably.

 
J-B-N- & S-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 208 (2007)  

Per § 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act, an asylum applicant in a mixed motive claim must prove that a protected ground was/will be at least one central reason for the claimed persecution.

1. Parussimova v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 161220 (9th Cir. 2009) - followsreasoning

2. Singh v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008),cited positively

3. Shaikh v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3855715 (5th Cir. 2009) - cites favorably

4. Castro v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 698294 (2d Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

5. Dallakoti v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3860994 (10th Cir. 2010) - accepts BIA’s interpretation

 
Gonzalez - Silva, 24 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2007)  

A conviction predating INA § 237(a)(2)(E) (2000) does not bar eligibility for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1)(C).

Arredondo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4291391 (9th Cir. 2010) - cites

 
Escobar, 24 I&N Dec. 231 (2007)  

Parent’s LPR status cannot be imputed to child for purposes of meeting five year LPR requirement for 240A(a)(1) cancellation of removal.

1. Augustin v. Atty. Gen., 520 F. 3d 264 (3d Cir. 2008): upholds

2. Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2009), reverses; vacated2009 WL 2054992 (9th Cir. 2009).

 
Sejas, 24 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2007)  

Assault & battery vs. a family member is not categorically a CIMT

Ceron v. Holder, 2013 WL 129672 (9th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
Solon, 24 I&N Dec. 239 (BIA 2007)  

Assault 3̊ under NYPL § 120.00(1) (requiring both specific intent and physical injury) is a CIMT.

1. Garcia v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3430124 (10th Cir. 2009) - cited favorably

2. Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4367060 (10th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

3. Ceron v. Holder, 2013 WL 129672 (9th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
S-Y-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 247 (2007)  

Evidence reflecting general birth control policies that do not specifically show likelihood of persecution to applicant or similarly situated others will not meet heavy burden of establishing “changed circumstances” required for reopening.

1. Huang v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 640 (6th Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

2. Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008), upheld

3. Zheng v. Holder, 701 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) – cites favorably

5. Boika v. Holder, 2013 WL 4399231 (7th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
J-Y-C-, 24 I&N Dec. 260 (2007)  

Under the REAL ID Act, credibility findings may be based on demeanor, plausibility and inconsistencies that do not go to the heart of the claim.

1. Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F. 3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008): cites favorably, follows rationale

2. Rasiah v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4667103 (1st Cir. 2009) - cited favorably.

3. Singh v. Holder, 2011 WL 2418894 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.

 
Riero and Espinol, 24 I&N Dec. 267 (BIA 2007)  

Alien seeking to establish 245(i) eligibility based on grandfathered marriage petition must prove that the marriage was bona fide at its inception in order to show it was “meritorious in fact.” 

1. Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5191771 (2d Cir. 2008), accorded deference

2. Ogundipe v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2008), cited positively

 
A-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 275 (2007)  

Asylum/withholding eligibilty cannot be established solely on the fear that daughter will be subjected to FGM

1. Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003) - reaches same conclusion, without citing (predates A-K-)

2. Abay v. Ashcroft, 368 F. 3d 634 (6th Cir. 2004) - without citing (predates A-K-),disagrees, finding mother established well - founded fear in her own right based on prospective harm to daughter

3. Niang v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2007) - same

4. Gumaneh v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2008),cited with approval

5. Kechichian v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2008),cited with approval

6. Kone v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 653258 (2d Cir. 2010) - cited for leaving open whether harm inflicted on child w/intent of emotionally harming parent may provide basis for parent’s individual claim.

7. Seck v. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 6091204 (11th Cir. 2011) –cites, discusses, but does not rule on (distinguishes facts).

8. Camara v. Holder, 705 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2013) – declines to rule on reasonableness where not challenged by either party

 

A-T-, 24 I&N 296 (2007), vacated, A-T-, 24 I&N Dec. 617 (A.G. 2008), remanded to Immigration Judge, 25 I&N Dec. 4 (BIA 2009).

 

A. Because FGM is performed only once, there is no future fear of persecution after the procedure.

B. FGM does not constitute “continuing persecution” (distinguished from sterilization)

A. 1. Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F. 3d 513 (8th Cir. 2008) - without citing (predates A-T-),disagrees with; finds IJ failed to consider other types of mistreatment re future fear

A. 2. Bah v. Mukasey, 529 F. 3d 99 (2d Cir. 2008) - overrules, finding the BIA erred in concluding that FGM is a “one - time” act, and in failing to consider other types of future persecution.

 
Babaisakov,24 I&N Dec. 306 (BIA 2006);  

Board Holding:  non-element facts of a removal charge may be determined by evidence beyond the record of conviction; addressing section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act.

See Nijhawan v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 2294 (2009) (finding the $10,000 loss provision in section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act calls for a Acircumstance - specific@ interpretation, not a Acategorical@ one).

 
Singh, 24 I&N Dec. 331 (2007)  

There is no conflict between INA § 216(c)(4) and 8 C.F.R. § 1216.5(e)(1) as to the period during which extreme hardship may be considered in adjudicating an I - 752 waiver.

1. Singh v. Mukasey*, 536 F. 3d 149, (2d Cir. 2008) - affirms

 
N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2007)  

PSC for withholding purposes need not be an aggravated felony, and all reliable evidence may be considered to determine if a PSC.

1. Delgado v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 1025874 (9th Cir. 2009)

2. Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2009) Deference accorded to Board's determination re evidence which can show psc.

3. Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006), contra, issued prior to N-A-M.

4. Tian v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2514153 (8th Cir. 2009) - cites favorably

5. N-A-M- v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3949130 (10th Cir. 2009) - affirmed.

6. Denis v. Att’y Gen. Of US, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 223024 (3d Cir. 2011) - upholds as reasonable interpretation

 
C-W-L-, 24 I&N Dec. 346 (2007)  

Alien subject to final order of removal is barred by statute and regulation from filing an untimely motion to file successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances.

1. Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F. 3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) - defers to as reasonable interpretation

2. Wei v. Mukasey, 545 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2008), follows

3. Zhang v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 851 (6th Cir. 2008), follows

4. Jin v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008), follows

5. Liu v. Att'y Gen., 2009 WL 92842 (6th Cir. 2009), cites approvingly

6. Chen v. U.S. Attorney General, 2009 WL 981212 (11th Cir. 2009), accords deference;

7. Zheng v. Holder, 2009 WL 1015029 (4th Cir. 2009), accords daeference.

 
Briones, 24 I&N Dec. 355 (BIA 2007)  

A. To be barred under INA section 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), an alien must depart the U.S. after accruing more than 1 year of unlawful presence, and then reenter (or attempt to) w/o being admitted.

B. One who is inadmissible under such section is not eligible for section 245(i) adjustment of status.

1. Ramirez-Canales v. Mukasey, 517 F. 3d 904 (6th Cir. 2008): follows, granting deference to the Board’s interpretation.

2. Mora v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 5220296 (2d Cir. 2008), accorded deference.

3. Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 2009 WL 2217519 (10th Cir. 2009), indicating deference should be accorded.

4. Ramirez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2499988 (4th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

5. Villanueva v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3034888 (8th Cir. 2010) - adopts reasoning.

6. Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, 2011 WL 856272 (10th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

7. Cheruku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. 2011) – accords deference.

8. Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2012 WL 5077137 (9th Cir. 2012) – accords deference under Brand X.

 
Lemus-Losa,24 I&N Dec. 373 (BIA 2007)  

R unlawfully present for one year, who departs country, and seeks admission w/i10 years from departure date, is inadmissible under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), even if departure not made pursuant to a removal order and not a voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings or at conclusion of proceedings; R not eligible for 245(i).

1. Herrera-Castillo v. Holder, 2009 WL 2217519 (10th Cir. 2009), accorded Chevron deference.

2. Lemus-Losa v. Holder*, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2461353 (7th Cir. 2009) - did not accord deference due to Board’s inadequate consideration of the statute at issue; remanded

3. Almeida v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4576067 (2d Cir. 2009) - cites favorably.

4. Villanueva v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3034888 (8th Cir. 2010) - adopts reasoning.

5. Cheruku v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4392429 (3d Cir. 2011) – accords deference.

 
Carachuri-Rosendo, 24 I&N Dec. 382 (2007)  

A. Controlling Circuit case law will determine whether a state drug conviction corresponds to the Federal felony of “recidivist possession,” and is thus an aggravated felony.

B. Absent controlling authority, recidivist status must be admitted by the alien or determined by the judge or jury for a state simple possession conviction to constitute an aggravated felony.

A. 1. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 570 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding Board’s determination that Fifth Circuit law controlled case).

B. 1. Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438, (6th Cir. 2008) - cites favorably

B. 2. Fernandez v. Mukasey, 544 F. 3d 862 (7th Cir. 2008), rejects reasoning

B. 3. Alsol v. Mukasey, 2008 WL 4890162 (2d Cir. 2008), follows

B. 4. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, —U.S.—, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2346552 (2010) - reverses 5th Cir. holding.

B. 5. Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2795327 (5th Cir. 2010) - cites while acknowledging (in fn) S. Ct.’s reversal of A. 1.

 
Thomas, 24 I&N Dec. 416 (2007)  

Respondent’s repeat offense of simple possession of marijuana not an aggravated felony where his status as a recidivist drug offender was neither admitted or determined by court in State proceeding.

Rashid v. Mukasey, 531 F. 3d 438, (6th Cir. 2008) - distinguishes, as unlike Thomas, conviction occurred in a circuit in which a controlling precedent existed relating to recidivist drug offenders

 
I-S & C-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 432 (BIA 2008)  

When IJ grants withholding of removal, without a grant of asylum, the decision must include an explicit order of removal.

Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2009), cites.

 
S-A-K- & H-A-H-, 24 I&N Dec. 464 (BIA 2008)  

Mother and daughter who provided sufficient evidence of FGM w/ aggravated circumstances are eligible for humanitarian asylum regardless of ability to establish fear of future harm.

1. Kone v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 653258 (2d Cir. 2010) - cited favorably

 
Baires, 24 I. & N. Dec. 467(BIA 2008)  

Child satisfying conditions of former § 321(a) before age 18 acquires USC status. (Court response)

1. Walker v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2009 WL 4725237 (1st Cir. 2009) - cites favorably for its holding that birth abroad creates presumption of alienage.

 
A-S-B-, 24 I&N Dec. 493 (BIA 2008)  

A. BIA should defer to IJ’s factual findings (unless clearly erroneous); retains independent judgment and discretion re pure questions of law and application of a particular standard of law to those facts.

B. In determining if established facts meet legal standard, the BIA can weigh evidence differently from IJ or conclude the foundation for the IJ’s legal conclusions was insufficient or not supported by record.

B. 1. Yusupov v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 2011 WL 2410741 (3d Cir. 2011) - cited.

B. 2. Ridore v. Holder, 2012 WL 4513230 (9th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

B. 3. Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) – rejects to extent BIA held IJ’s finding of likelihood of future persecution not to be a factual finding

 
V-K-, 24 I&N Dec. 500 (BIA 2008)  

An IJ’s prediction of likelihood of torture is a mixed question of law and fact (i.e. a question of judgment), and is thus reviewed by the Board de novo.

1. Kaplun v. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1409019 (3d Cir. 2010) - Rejects holding, concluding that the likelihood of torture is a factual finding reviewable under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

2. Ridore v. Holder, 2012 WL 4513230 (9th Cir. 2012) – discusses.

3. Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) – discusses.

4. Rosiles-Camarena v. Holder, 2013 WL 4457283 (7th Cir. 2013) – rejects reasoning 

 
Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I&N Dec. 503 (BIA 2008).  

A. “Crime of child abuse” defined as any offense involving intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally negligent act or omission constituting maltreatment of a minor or that impairs such person’s well - being, including sexual abuse or exploitation.

B. Alien’s removability for such crime is determined by the elements of his/her offense, as reflected in the statutory definition or admissible portions of the conviction record.

A, B: Fregozo v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2009 WL 2449673 (9th Cir. 2009) - accords deference

 
J-S-, 24 I&N Dec. 520 (A.G. 2008) (A.G.’s holding)  

A. The spouse of one subjected to forcible abortion/sterilization is not a refugee per se.

B. Spouse may still qualify as refugee based on own fear of future subjection to abortion/sterilization, or on fear of persecution on account of “other resistance” to coercive population control program.

A. 1. Dong v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3682652 (1st Cir. 2009) - cited

A. 2. Jiang v. Holder, 2010 WL 2026671 (9th Cir. 2010) - accords deference.

A. 3. Jiang v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757377 (9th Cir. 2010) - accords deference.

A. 4. Pang v. Holder, 2012 WL 28950 (10th Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

A. 5. Dong v. Holder, 2012 WL 4646500 (1st Cir. 2012) – upholds as reasonable.

A. 6. Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2013) – cites favorably

A.7. Wen Feng Liu v. Holder, 2013 WL 1715533 (1st Cir. 2013) – cited;

B. 1. Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2013) – cites favorably

B.2. Wen Feng Liu v. Holder, 2013 WL 1715533 (1st Cir. 2013) – cited and discussed

 
Hines, 24 I&N Dec. 544 (BIA 2008)  

Under Jamaican law, the sole means of legitimation is by marriage of the natural parents.

1. Watson v. Holder, 2011 WL 2119768 (2d Cir. 2011) - remanded for clarification of how BIA interpreted concept of “legitimation” re statutory definition of “child.”

2. Romero-Mendoza v. Holder, 2011 WL 63183336 (9th Cir. 2011) – cites and discusses.

 
Gonzales-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008)  

Single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf does not equal procuring “prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution” under INA § 212(a)(2)(D)(ii).

1. Prus v. Holder, 2011 WL 4470540 (2d Cir. 2011) – accords deference.

 
Rotimi, 24 I&N Dec. 567 (BIA 2008).  

Pending application for asylum or adjustment of status alone is not “lawful residence” under INA § 212(h).

1. Rotimi v. Holder*, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2476648 (2d Cir. 2009) - accords deference

2. Vila v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 786605 (11th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

 
S-E-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 579 (2008)  

Those subjected to gang recruitment efforts and who have rejected/resisted membership based on own personal, moral, and religious opposition to gang values etc., nor their family members, constitute a particular social group.

1. Santos-Lemos v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008), cites approvingly

2. Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 2009 WL 1012062 (9th Cir. 2009), accords deference.

3. Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 2009 WL 2225808 (8th Cir. 2009), cites in reasoning.

4. Al-Ghorbani v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3718297 (6th Cir. 2009) - cited

5. Mejilla-Romero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1293818 (1st Cir. 2010) - cites favorably.

6. Larios v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2473327 (4th Cir. 2010) - cites with approval.

7. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, (4th Cir. 2011) - cites with approval;

8. Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 2011 WL 546531 (4th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably, but remands where IJ failed to apply correctly

9. Constanza v. Holder, 2011 WL 3241864 (8th Cir. 2011) – follows.

10. Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 2013 WL 1846616 (9th Cir. 2013)

 
E-A-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2007);  

Young persons perceived to be affiliated with gangs/persons resistant to gang membership are not particular social groups. 

1. Marroquin-Ochoma v. Holder, 2009 WL 2225808 (8th Cir. 2009), cites.

2. Ramos v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4800123 (7th Cir. 2009) - cited, but distinguished from case of former gang members.

3. Mejilla-Romero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1293818 (1st Cir. 2010) - follows

4. Larios v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2473327 (4th Cir. 2010) - cites with approval.

5. Lizama v. Holder, 629 F.3d 440, (4th Cir. 2011) - accords deference

6. Ayala v. Holder, 2011 WL 1886391 (9th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably.

 
Ramirez-Vargas, 24 I&N Dec. 599 (BIA 2008)  

A parent’s period of residence in the U.S. cannot be imputed to a child for purposes of calculating continuous residence under section 240A(a)(2) of the Act.

Escobar v. Holder, 567 F.3d 466 (9th Cir. 2009), explicitly disapproves; vacated 2009 WL 2054992 (9th Cir. 2009)

 
Saysana, 24 I&N Dec. 602 (BIA 2008) (Board holding)  

A. INA § 236(c)(1) does not limit non - DHS custodial setting solely to criminal custody tied to basis for detention under that section; B. Respondent subject to mandatory detention after release from non - DHS custody for failure to register as sex offender, even where no conviction.

1. Saysana v. Gillen, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 4913289 (1st Cir. 2009) - reversed.

 
Nwozuzu, 24 I&N Dec. 609 (BIA 2008)  

To derive citizenship under § 321(a) of the Act, an alien must acquire LPR status while under the age of 18.

1. U.S. v. Forey-Quintero, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4830004 (11th Cir. 2010) - finds to be persuasive authority, although not binding (n.3)

 
Guadarrama, 24 I&N Dec. 625 (BIA 2008)  

Alien who made false claim of US citizenship may be considered to lack good moral character under INA § 101(f), but such finding not mandated by statute.

1. Muratoski v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3619792 (7th Cir. 2010) - cites favorably

 
M-F-W- & L-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 633 (BIA 2008)  

A. Act that thwarts the goal of China’s family planning policy may constitute “other resistance.”

B. Insertion of IUD will generally not constitute persecution.

C. Generally, no nexus to protected ground where IUD inserted as part of routine medical procedure.

1. Cheng v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 3896198 (3d Cir. 2010) - grants Chevron deference

 
Armendarez-Mendez, 24 I&N Dec. 646 (BIA 2008)  

BIA lacks authority to reopen proceedings if alien has departed U.S. after hearing completed

1. Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2929828 (10th Cir. 2009 - follows

2. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757321 (7th Cir. 2010) - rejects reasoning.

3. Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2010) - accords Chevron deference.

4. Pruidze v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 320726 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites;

5. Luna v. Holder, 2011 WL 722607 (2d Cir. 2011) - disagrees w/ dicta suggesting that regulation deprives BIA of jurisdiction to consider statutory motions to reopen after movant departs U.S.

6. Prestol-Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011) – abrogates holding without citing.

7. Desai v. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 3570718 (3d Cir. 2012) – recognizes abrogation re departure bar rule in general, but finds holding still valid re motions for sua sponte reopening.

8. Garcia Carias v. Holder, 2012 WL 4458228 (5th Cir. 2012) – does not accord deference; declined to follow.

 
M-R-A-, 24 I&N Dec. 665 (BIA 2008)  

regular mail accorded a weaker presumption of delivery.

1. Ba v. Holder, 2009 WL 92842 (6th Cir. 2009), cites approvingly

2. Dakaj v. Holder, —F.3d—; 2009 WL 2707534 (7th Cir. 2009) - cites favorably

3. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

 
Eslamizar, 24 I&N Dec. 684 (BIA 2004)   Finding of guilt under Oregon law for a violation, pursuant to proceedings that, under state statute, require a lesser burden of proof, is not a conviction under § 101(a)(48)(A) of the I&N Act.

1. Castillo v. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 4712753 (3d Cir. 2013) – remanded for clarification.

 
Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (A.G.’s holding)  

A. Creates a 3 - step process for CIMT determinations; adds a “realistic probability” requirement to the categorical approach.

B. Categorical finding of CIMT proper where conviction was for intentional sexual contact w/one the defendant knew or should have known was a child.

C. CIMT must involve both reprehensible conduct and some degree of scienter.

A. 1. Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—; 2009 WL 3172753 (3d Cir. 2009) - does not accord deference to AG’s “realistic prbability” requirement.

A. 2. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4746189 (7th Cir. 2010) - accords deference

A. 3. Fajardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2011 WL 4808171 (11th Cir. 2011) – does not accord deference

A. 4. Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) – does not accord Chevron deference; rejects reasoning.

A. 5. Guardado-Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) – declined to apply

A. 6. Da Silva-Neto v. Holder, 680 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) – declined to rule on 3rd prong of test, but noted its controversy among the circuits.

A. 7. Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2012) – declined to rule on

A. 8. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2013 WL 819383 (7th Cir. 2013) – cites favorably

A. 9. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 2013 WL 2128318 (9th Cir. 2013) – disagrees with; does not accord Chevron deference

 
Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009)  

Setting out guidance for how an IJ should analyze motion for continuance when a prima facie approvable I - 130 petition is pending.

1. Wu v. Holder, 571 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2009), cites.

2. Thirman v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1076061 (8th Cir. 2010) - cited; court found holding did not extend to pendency of appeal of I - 130 denial w/ BIA.

3. Young Hee Kwak v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2499425 (6th Cir. 2010) - cited

4. Malilia v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 322383 (9th Cir. 2011) - applies holding

5. Freire v. Holder, 2011 WL 2090820 (2d Cir. 2011) - cited favorably; remands for BIA to apply holding to instant case.

6. Simon v. Holder, 2011 WL 3606854 (3d Cir. 2011) – cites favorably;remands for BIA to apply in instant case. 

7. Shewchun v. Holder, 2011 WL 3926378 (6th Cir. 2011) – cites favorably.

8. Sheikh v. Holder, 2012 WL 4801335 (1st Cir. 2012) - cited favorably.

9. Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1566636 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably; remanded for BIA to apply in present case.

 
Cardenas-Abreu, 24 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2009)  

A pending, late-reinstated appeal of a criminal conviction filed under NY CPL § 460.30 does not undermine finality of conviction.

1. Cabral v. Holder, 632 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2011) - cites favorably


Return to top of the page


Volume 25
 
Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009)  

The automatic conversion and priority date retention provision of CSPA does not apply to one who ages out of eligibility for a derivative visa under the 4th family preference, and later becomes the beneficiary of a family 2nd preference petition filed by a different petitioner

1. Li v. Renaud, 2011 WL 2567037 (2d Cir. 2011) - Not accorded deference where court found statute spoke clearly to the “precise question at issue.”

2. De Osorio v. Mayorkas, 2012 WL 4373336 (9th Cir. 2012) – No deference accorded; rejected reasoning.

 
Bulnes-Nolasco, 25 I&N Dec. 57 (BIA 2009)  

Alien’s departure from U.S. following an in absentia order of removal does not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction over a motion to reopen and rescind the order based on lack of notice.

1. Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 2757321 (7th Cir. 2010) - discussed.

2. Pruidze v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2011 WL 320726 (6th Cir. 2011) - cites

 
G-D-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 82 (BIA 2009)   An alien who entered U.S. pursuant to a crewman’s visa for purpose of obtaining employment as a crewman is ineligible for Cancellation of removal under § 240A(c)(1) of the I&N Act. 

1. Guerrero v. Holder, 2013 WL 4457434 (1st Cir. 2013) – cited favorably

 
Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2009)  

A. With one narrow exception, jurisdiction over adjustment applications filed by arriving aliens lies w/ USCIS.

B. The Board generally lacks authority to reopen proceedings where the alien seeks relief over which the BIA has no jurisdiction, especially where reopening is sought to simply to stay deportation.

C. Board will generally not reopen sua sponte in regard to untimely or number - barred motions by arriving aliens seeking to adjust.

B. 1. Clifton v. Holder, —F.3d—, 2010 WL 1006436 (8th Cir. 2010) - Found reasoning failed to consider remands to seek continuance under Hashmi; and that no stay required once proceedings reopened.

 
Martinez Espinoza, 25 I&N Dec. 118 (BIA 2009)  

A conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia = a conviction “relating to a controlled substance” under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).

1. Borrome v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 2914111 (3d Cir. 2012) – cited and discussed, but found inapplicable

2. Rojas v. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 4504648 (3d Cir. 2013) – discussed and not applied

 
Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127 (BIA 2009)  

Set out factors for IJs to consider in determining whether to grant continuance based on pending employment - based visa petition or labor certification.

1. Contreras v. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 10930 (3d Cir. 2012) – cited (in footnote).

2. Sheikh v. Holder, 2012 WL 4801335 (1st Cir. 2012) – cited.

2. Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1566636 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably; remanded for BIA to apply in present case.

 
Velasco, 25 I&N Dec. 143 (BIA 2009)  

VD regs at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(4) (effective 1/20/2009) do not apply retroactively.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited.

 
Gamero, 25 I&N Dec. 168 (BIA 2010)  

Grant of VD under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3) (2010) requires IJ advisals that proof of posting bond must be submitted to BIA w/i 30 days, or BIA will not reinstate VD in its final order.

1. Bachynskyy v. Holder, 2011 WL 6287868 (7th Cir. 2011) – cited

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

Evidence presented failed to establish well - founded fear of persecution in China due to births of 2 U.S.C. children

1. Chen v. Att’y Gen. Of US, 2011 WL 923353 (3d Cir. 2011) - Follows

2. Zheng v. Holder, 701 F.3d 237 (7th Cir. 2012) – cites favorably

3. Zhu v. Att’y Gen., 703 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2013) – rejects to extent BIA held IJ’s finding of likelihood of future persecution not to be a factual finding

4. Chen v. Holder, 705 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2013) – cites favorably

5. Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2014 WL 1012951 (11th Cir. 2014) – cites favorably.

 
Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010)  

Alien who adjusted status after entering w/o inspection was previously admitted to U.S.as LPR; must therefore satisfy 7 yr. continuous residence requirement for 212(h) waiver.

1. Lanier v. US Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2011 WL 338787 (11th Cir. 2011) - does not accord deference.

2. Hanif v. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 4044727 (3d Cir. 2012) – No Chevron deference accorded; declined to follow.

3. Leiba v. Holder, 699 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2012) – found distinguishable from (and thus not in conflict with) circuit case law.

4. Roberts v. Holder, 2014 WL 1062930 (8th Cir. 2014) – accords deference.

 
B-Y-, 25 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2010)  

Further clarifies procedure for making a frivolous finding under INA section 208(d)(4)(A).

1. Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2010) - cites favorably.

2. Liu v. Holder, 2011 WL 635276 (9th Cir. 2011) - follows

 
Castillo-Padilla, 25 I&N Dec. 257 (BIA 2010)  

A. Conditional parole under INA § 236(a)(2)(B) and parole under INA § 212(d)(5)(A) are distinct and separate procedures.

B. Release from custody under conditional parole does not render an alien eligible to adjust status as one paroled into the U.S.

1. Delgado-Sobalvarro v. U.S. Att’y Gen., —F.3d—, 2010 WL 4292020 (3d Cir. 2010) - defers to Board’s reasoning

 
Quilantan, 25 I&N Dec. 285 (BIA 2010)  

To establish eligibility for adjustment under INA § 245(a), to show admission, alien need only prove procedural regularity in his/her entry.

1. Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 2011 WL 4908351 (10th Cir. 2011) – examined, distinguishedfrom facts presented.

 
Casillas-Topete, 25 I&N Dec. 317 (BIA 2010)  

An alien is removable under INA § 237(a)(1)(A) as one who was inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(C) where an appropriate immigration official knows or has reason to believe the alien is a controlled substance trafficker.

Gomez-Granillo v. Holder, 2011 WL 2714163 (9th Cir. 2011) – discussed and followed.

 
N-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 526 (BIA 2011)  

A. Opposition to state corruption may constitute real or imputed political opinion.

B. Under REAL ID Act, retaliation for opposing corruption is insufficient unless alien shows his/her anticorruption belief = “one central reason” for harm. (3) Lists factors for IJ to consider in determining nexus.

A. 1. Yu v. Holder, 2012 WL 3871371 (2d Cir. 2012) – cited favorably

 

Rivens, 25 I&N Dec. 623 (BIA 2011)

 

DHS bears burden of proof to establish a returning LPR should be treated as an applicant for admission under section 101(a)(13)(C) of the I&N Act.

1. Patel v. Holder, 2013 WL 388046 (1st Cir. 2013) - cited

 
Camarillo, 25 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 2011)   Service of the NTA stops accrual of continuous residence/continuous presence for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(d)(1) (“stop-time rule”).

1. Urbina v. Holder, 2014 WL 998324 (4th Cir. 2014) – accords Chevron deference.

 
Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012)   A. IJ or BIA may admin. close proceedings, even if a party opposes, if otherwise appropriate; B. In determining appropriateness of closure, IJ/BIA should consider all relevant factors. 

A.1. Aguirre v. Holder, 2013 WL 4531747 (1st Cir. 2013) – cited for proposition that admin. closure does not terminate proceedings.

 
L-S-, 25 I&N Dec. 705 (BIA 2012)  

Asylum applicant who has suffered past persecution, but no longer has well-founded fear of persecution, may warrant humanitarian asylum based on “other serious harm.”

1. Georgieva v. Holder, 2014 WL 1778038 (7th Cir. 2014) – cites favorably.

 
Lanferman, 25 I&N Dec. 721 (BIA 2012)  

A criminal statute is divisible if some but not all violations of the statute give rise to grounds for removal or ineligibility for relief.

1. Campbell v. Holder, 2012 WL 5077154 (1st Cir. 2012) – Finds Board’s conclusion that the Taylor-Shepard approach need not be applied as rigorously in immigration context to be overruled by Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009).

 
Arrabally, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012)   Temporary leave pursuant to advance parole is not a “departure” under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the I&N Act.  1. Ortiz-Bouchet v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 2013 WL 1729412 (11th Cir. 2013) – cited favorably
 
Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012)  

Creates exception to Matter of Koljenovic in 4th, 5th and 7th Circuits, where alien was not admitted as LPR prior to conviction.

1. Leiba v. Holder, 699 F.3d 346 (4th Cir. 2012) – cited

2. Roberts v. Holder, 2014 WL 1062930 (8th Cir. 2014) – accords deference.

 

Return to top of the page


Volume 26
 
Leal, 26 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2012)  

Reckless endangerment under AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-1201(A) = CIMT under Silva-Trevino (even though AZ statute includes ignorance of risk resulting from intoxication).

1. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 2013 WL 2128318 (9th Cir. 2013) – acknowledges without opining on.

 
Estrada, 26 I&N Dec. 180 (BIA 2013)   Spouse or child cannot qualify as a derivative grandfathered alien under § 245(i) of the I&N Act where spouse or child relationship arose after 4/30/2001. 

1.  Agyei v. Holder, 2013 WL 4618389 (1st Cir. 2013) - cited

 
W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014)  

(A) “social visibility” renamed “social distinction.”

(B) Applicant must establish claimed PSG is (1) composed of members sharing an immutable characteristic; (2) defined w/ particularity; and (3) socially distinct w/i the society in question.

(C) Applicant must prove both existence of cognizant group and that risk of persecution is “on account of” membership.

(D) Applicant did not establish that former members of Mara 18 gang who renounced membership satisfies either requirement of (C).

1. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 2014 WL 1797657 (9th Cir. 2014) – deferred ruling on reasonableness until sees how applied by BIA on remand.

 
M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227 (BIA 2014)  

(A) “social visibility” renamed “social distinction.”

(B) Applicant must establish claimed PSG is (1) composed of members sharing an immutable characteristic; (2) defined w/ particularity; and (3) socially distinct w/i the society in question.

(C) Perception of society (and not of persecutor) is determinative.

1. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 2014 WL 1797657 (9th Cir. 2014) – deferred ruling on reasonableness until sees how applied by BIA on remand.

 

Return to top of the page