Immigrant Children Begin School At Federal Immigration Jail — WordPress.com – http://bit.ly/1u29yHW
On this somber anniversary, we remember thousands who perished simply because they chose to be free. I know that many blame religion and culture for this tragedy. I want them to remember, however, that many Arabs like me are dealing with terror every day. In Lebanon, for example. Hizbollah terrorizes Lebanese citizens every day. I want you to remember that the next time you hear some bad news coming from that part of the world.
In a decision issued last week, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Attorney General’s discretionary power to deny Adjustment of Status to violent criminals. The Respondent was denied Adjustment of Status, even though he was statutorily eligible, because he was conviction of a sexual abuse crime, which was determined to be a violent crime. An applicant convicted of a violent or dangerous crime must show that the denial of his adjustment would lead to exceptional hardship to his relatives under Matter of Jean. The immigration judge ruled that Valdivias was ineligible for Adjustment of Status in the exercise of discretion and the Board upheld. In upholding the Board’s decision, the court ruled that the circumstances of the crime dictated the denial, in the excercise of discretion. The case is Torres-Valdivias v. Holder .
In a decision dated last month, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in relying on uncorroborated police reports to deny 212(c) relief. The Petitioner in the case was convicted in 1990 of a domestic abuse charge. He was subsequently arrested several times but was never convicted of anything else. The immigration judge ruled that he was credible but denied his request for relief since he did not show that he was rehabilitated. The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s decision reasoning that even though the case was a “close call”, the Respondent did not show that he was rehabilitated. The court, in reversing the BIA’s decision, reasoned that the Board did not follow its own binding decision in Arreguin, 21 I&N Dec. 38 (BIA 1995) and thus the case was denied improperly. The court ruled that since the police reports were uncorroborated, they should not have been used as a basis to deny relief in the case. The case is Avila-Ramirez v. Holder.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled today that a Respondent can not file a stand alone 212(h) waiver without an accompanying application for adjustment of status application. Rivas applied for a waiver of inadmissibility nunc pro tunc after being placed in removal proceedings. He had applied for naturalization, but his application was denied since he had two larceny convictions in Florida. The immigration judge granted the waiver application and the Service appealed. The Board reversed the immigration judge’s decision reasoning that statutory revisions such is IIRIRA precluded nunc pro tunc waiver applications. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Board’s decision on the same reasoning. The court also ruled that Congress had several rational basis to disallow nunc pro tunc waivers. To read the decision click here.
أصدر مجلس استئناف قرارات الهجره الأميركي قرارا يمنح حق اللجوء لضحايا التعنيف الاسري. وتحدرت المدعى عليها من غواتيمالا وكانت تتعرض للتعنيف من قبل زوجها بشكل اسبوعي. ولم تتلقى مساعدة من البوليس رغم طلبها للمساعدة عدة مرات. ولا يحسر القرار بطلبات الهجرة من غواتيمالا بل يمنح هذا الحق لكل طالبة لجوء تتحدر من أي بلد ينتشر فيه التعنيف ضد المرأة. لقراءة القرار انقر علي هذا الرابط http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/lib_indecitnet.html.
The BIA issued a precedent decision ruling that Guatemalan victims of domestic violence qualify for Asylum. Visit http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/libindex.html.
Last week, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that the unlawful possession of ammunition by a felon under 8 USC 922(g) is an aggravated felony under the Act. In Matter of Oppedisano, 26 I&N Dec. 202 (BIA 2013), a native of Italy was admitted to the US as a permanent resident on September 9, 1973. Id. He was convicted of unlawful possession of ammunition by a convicted felon under 8 USC 922(g) in 2012 and sentenced to probation for 5 years and fined $15000. Id. at 203. He was placed in removal proceedings and charged as an aggravated felon under 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) and was ordered deported by the immigration judge.
Upon appeal, Oppedisano argued that his conviction was not an offense under 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) since it did not relate to a “firearms offense” since the parenthetical in the section created a limiting clause. The Board reasoned that the offense related to a firearms offense since the quotations did not limit the offenses for which an alien could be deported. Id. at 204. The Board added that Congressional, ascertained from the language of the statute, was not to limit the offenses under the section since it did not use restrictive language in the law. Id. The Board upheld the removal order for these reasons.