Source: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/board-precedents-and-related-court-decisions
Timestamp: 2015-09-02 04:26:10
Document Index: 718020181

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 8698', '§ 310', '§ 212', '§212', '§ 101', '§ 924']

Board Precedents and Related Court Decisions | EOIR | Department of Justice
Board Precedents and Related Court Decisions
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
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
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
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
Pierre, 14 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 1973)
To effect an entry, one must have, while free from actual or constructive restraint, crossed into the territorial limits of the U.S. and been inspected or admitted by an immigration officer, or actually and intentionally evaded inspection at the nearest inspection point.
1. De Leon v. Holder, 761 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2014) - cited favorably
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
6. Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2014) – 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.
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
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 Â§ 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
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) -