Source: http://immigrationattorneyvirginia.info/tag/immigration-judge/
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 18:19:49
Document Index: 119463754

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1101', '§ 1252', '§ 1158', '§ 1229', '§ 1255', '§ 1182', '§ 212', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 1252', '§ 212']

Immigration JudgeVirginia Immigration Lawyer Visa Deportation Attorneys Temporary
Immigration Judge	Virginia Lawyers Immigration Board Asylum	Virginia Lawyers Immigration Board Asylum
Petitioner alien applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1158. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the alien’s appeal. The alien petitioned for review of the BIA’s order.
Virginia Lawyers Immigration Board Asylum
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo, affording appropriate deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and any attendant regulations. The court will reverse the Board only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.
For asylum applications filed after the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, a trier of fact, considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, may base a credibility determination on any inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood without regard to whether it goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). An immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination need no longer rest solely on those matters fundamental to an alien’s claim for relief under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In evaluating credibility, an immigration judge may rely on omissions and inconsistencies that do not directly relate to the applicant’s claim of persecution as long as the totality of the circumstances establish that the applicant is not credible.
Posted in Immigration Lawyer | Tagged 888 437, Asylum Applications, Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Immigration And Naturalization, Immigration And Naturalization Act, Immigration Case, Immigration Judge, Immigration Naturalization, Loudoun Virginia, Necessary Experience, Prince William, Real Id Act, Real Id Act Of 2005, Requisite Fear, Trier Of Fact, United States Facts, Virginia Court, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	Virginia Lawyers Immigration Removal	Virginia Lawyers Immigration Removal
Petitioner lawful permanent resident filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that ordered his removal after the BIA vacated an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) decision which granted petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(a).
Virginia Lawyers Immigration Removal
As to factors in determining an application for cancellation of removal, positive factors include family ties within the United States, residence of long duration in the country (particularly when the inception of residence occurred while the respondent was of young age), evidence of hardship to the respondent and family if deportation occurs, service in the country’s Armed Forces, a history of employment, the existence of property or business ties, evidence of value and service to the community, proof of a genuine rehabilitation if a criminal record exists, and other evidence attesting to a respondent’s good character (e.g., affidavits from family, friends, and responsible community representatives). Adverse factors, on the other hand, involve such matters as the nature and underlying circumstances of the exclusion ground at issue, the presence of additional significant violations of the country’s immigration laws, the existence of a criminal record and, if so, its nature, recency, and seriousness, and the presence of other evidence indicative of a respondent’s bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident of the country.
An alien must establish prejudice to invalidate deportation proceedings on a claim that his statutory or regulatory rights were infringed. And a court may only find prejudice when the rights of an alien have been transgressed in such a way as is likely to impact the results of the proceedings.
Posted in Immigration Lawyer | Tagged 888 437, Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Business Ties, Cancellation Of Removal, Circum, Community Representatives, Family Ties, Good Character, Immigration Case, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyers, Loudoun Virginia, Necessary Experience, Prince William, Responsible Community, United States Facts, Virginia Court, Virginia Lawyers, William Richmond	Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship	Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship
Petitioner alien filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) that she was ineligible to adjust her status to that of lawful permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255(a) on the basis that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
If you are facing an Immigration case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship
Under § 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(i), a noncitizen may obtain a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility due to fraud or willful misrepresentation where the inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to a citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent of the noncitizen. § 1182(i)(1).
Where the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirms and supplements an immigration judge’s (IJ) order, the factual findings and reasoning contained in both decisions are subject to judicial review. A decision that an alien is not eligible for admission to the United States is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to law. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(C). The appellate court reviews the BIA’s administrative findings of fact under the substantial evidence rule and are obliged to treat them as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, § 1252(b)(4)(B). The appellate court also defers to credibility findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Though broad, this deference is not absolute, as an IJ’s adverse credibility determination must be supported by a specific, cogent reason.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Evidence Rule, Extreme Hardship, Factual Findings, Federal Immigration, Immigration And Nationality, Immigration And Nationality Act, Immigration And Nationality Act 8, Immigration Case, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Loudoun Virginia, Necessary Experience, Prince William, Resident Spouse, United States Facts, Virginia Lawyer, Willful Misrepresentation, William Richmond	Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101	Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101
Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101
A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo, affording appropriate deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and any attendant regulations. The court will reverse the Board only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged 888 437, Adjudicator, Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Deference, Fact Finder, Immigration And Naturalization, Immigration And Naturalization Act, Immigration Case, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Naturalization, Law Group, Requisite Fear, Social Group, United States Facts, Uscs, Virginia Court, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Administrative Tribunal, Appellate Court, Bureau Of Immigration, Collateral Attack, Credit Card Fraud, Defendant, Deportation, Eastern District Of Virginia, Immigration And Naturalization, Immigration And Naturalization Service, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Naturalization, Judicial Review, Reentry, Social Security Fraud, States District Court, United States District, United States District Court, Virginia Lawyer	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Reopen Proceedings Refugee Asylum	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Reopen Proceedings Refugee Asylum
Petitioner refugee appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, which denied his habeas corpus petition seeking review of respondent immigration service’s decision to continue his pre-deportation detention, and the appeals board’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
Whether the denial of the defendant’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings was proper?
The refugee, who was a religious and ethnic refugee, immigrated to the United States from the Ukraine. He was convicted of conducting espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union and, after serving his sentence, was ordered deported back to the Soviet Union. The refugee appealed after the trial court denied his petition for habeas corpus review in two separate orders, which included the decision of the immigration service to continue pre-deportation detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(c), and the appeals board’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the immigration service did not abuse its discretion under § 1252(c) in continuing the refugee’s detention, on the ground that he posed a danger to the United States. The court also found that the appeals board correctly denied asylum and the withholding of deportation because reasonable grounds existed for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of the United States. Finally, the refugee was not entitled to designate a new country of deportation. The court affirmed the denial of the refugee’s petition for habeas corpus review of the immigration service’s deportation order.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Asylum, Deportation Proceedings, Eastern District Of Virginia, Espionage, Habeas Corpus, Immigration And Nationality, Immigration And Nationality Act, Immigration And Nationality Act 8, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Service, Petitioner, Refugee, Respondent, States District Court, Trial Court, United States District, United States District Court, United States Facts, Virginia Lawyer	Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari	Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Certiorari, Court Determined That, Foreign Travel, Illegal Immigration Reform, Immigrant Responsibility Act, Immigration Case, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Law Group, Lawyer Immigration, Permanent Residents, Removal Proceedings, Retroactive Legislation, United States Court, United States Court Of Appeals, United States Facts, Virginia Lawyer, Virginia Lawyers	Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing	Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Alexandria Virginia, Beca, Board Of Immigration Appeals, Board Of Immigration Appeals Bia, Chevron Deference, Criminal Aliens, Deportation, Eastern District Of Virginia, Federal Custody, Felony Lawyer, Habeas Corpus, Immediacy, Immigration Court, Immigration Judge, Mandatory Detention, Permanent Resident, Petitioner, Plausible Construction, Respondent, Virginia Lawyer	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Continuance Waiver Denial	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Continuance Waiver Denial
Petitioner alien sought review of the decision of respondent, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal of the order of the immigration judge (IJ) finding him to be deportable and denying his application for a waiver of deportation. The alien also sought review of the Board’s dismissal of his appeal of the IJ’s order denying his request for bond.
Whether the IJ erred in denying defendant a continuance to obtain counsel before proceeding with the deportation hearing?
The alien, a Nigerian citizen and a lawful permanent resident, also filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion for a stay of deportation in both appeals. He was convicted of criminal offenses related to the distribution of heroin. Upon his release from prison, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings. The alien contended that the IJ erred in denying him a continuance to obtain counsel before proceeding with the deportation hearing. The court held that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance because the alien had two prior continuances and had still not obtained counsel. The alien did not show that he was denied a fair hearing or that he had been prejudiced by lack of counsel. There was no evidence that the outcome of the hearing would have been different, because the alien was convicted of an aggravated felony and incarcerated for ten years for the criminal offense; he was statutorily barred from relief under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Lastly, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of bond to the alien. The court affirmed the Board’s decision affirming the IJ’s order finding the alien deportable and ineligible for waiver relief in the first appeal. In the second appeal, the court dismissed the alien’s appeal from the Board’s decision to affirm the IJ’s order denying bond. The court denied the alien’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion for a stay of deportation both appeals.
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Board Of Immigration Appeals, Continuance, Criminal Offense, Criminal Offenses, Deportation Proceedings, Heroin, Immigration Act, Immigration And Naturalization, Immigration And Naturalization Act, Immigration And Naturalization Service, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Naturalization, Lawyer Immigration, Nigerian Citizen, Permanent Resident, Petitioner, Respondent, United States Facts, Virginia Lawyer	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage	Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Posted in Attorneys | Tagged Adjustment Of Status, Board Of Immigration Appeals, Certified Mail, Customer Service Representative, Deportation Proceedings, Embezzlement, Immigration Judge, Immigration Lawyer, Immigration Marriage, Immigration Naturalization, Lawyer Immigration, Naturalization Service, Peti, Petitioner, Rational Explanation, Respondent, Unauthorized Employment, United States Facts, Virginia Lawyer, Voluntary Departure	CLIENT MEETING LOCATIONS