News

Case Summaries

Immigration Law

[03/10] Vila v. US Atty. Gen.
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for a waiver of inadmissibility, the petition is denied where, because petitioner's approved I-140 visa petition did not make him a lawful resident under section 212(h) when the Immigration and Naturalization Service formally approved his application for adjustment, petitioner did not lawfully reside continuously in the U.S. for the seven years preceding the initiation of his removal proceedings on October 25, 2003.

[03/09] Tampubolon v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioners' asylum application, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred in failing to apply disfavored group analysis to petitioners' withholding claim because the record compelled a finding that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA's failure to address two irrelevant cases did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.

[03/09] Najmabadi v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the basis of changed conditions in Iran, the petition is denied where: 1) substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the evidence petitioner submitted in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the original hearing; and 2) there was no evidence establishing that returnees from the U.S. would likely face persecution.

[03/09] Thu v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal from a denial of petitioner's asylum application and related relief, the petition is denied where: 1) the Immigration Judge's credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief; and 2) the evidence in the record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.

[03/09] Sadhvani v. Holder
A petition for review by a native of Togo of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen asylum application is denied as the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion based on the statutory requirement that one must be present in the United States to be eligible for asylum, and here, because petitioner was removed pursuant to a valid order of removal, he no longer can pursue his asylum application.

[03/08] US v. Molina
Defendant's sentence for transporting an illegal alien is affirmed where: 1) because there was no evidence of involuntariness, the district court properly admitted the hearsay evidence at defendant's sentencing hearing pursuant to a signed stipulation; and 2) the conflicting evidence weighed against a finding that defendant accepted responsibility for his actions.

[03/08] US v. Arias-Ordonez
In a prosecution for reentry following removal from the U.S., the dismissal of the indictment is affirmed where the order instructing defendant to report for removal misinformed him that he had no administrative remedies and he was never told that he had a right to reopen to seek voluntary departure.

[03/08] Freeman v. Holder
In a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the petition is denied where: 1) since a 209(c) waiver only dealt with waiving grounds for inadmissibility for the purpose of seeking adjustment of status, the waiver petitioner placed in the record had no bearing on whether he was removable for his conviction; 2) petitioner was provided with ample notice of the consequences of a failure to appear; and 3) a proposed witness's testimony would not have changed the outcome of the case, and he was not denied due process.

[03/08] People v. Puluc-Sique
People's request to extend the appellate disentitlement doctrine (applicable to fugitives) to a criminal defendant who had been deported from the country by the ICE is denied as, absent additional circumstances not presented here, a defendant who has been deported does not stand in the same shoes as one who has voluntarily placed himself beyond the court's control.

[03/08] Cervantes v. Holder
BIA's judgment affirming the IJ's rejection of petitioners' temporary protected status (TPS) applications and ordering them to voluntarily depart the United States is affirmed where: 1) the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioners are unable to satisfy the "continuous physical presence" requirement for TPS; and 2) BIA did not err in determining that the petitioners are unable to satisfy the TPS eligibility requirements because they have not continuously resided in the U.S. since December 30, 1998.

Read More