28 April 2010

Immigration Case Summaries – Recent Decisions in Immigration Law

Bradley v. US Attorney General, No. 08-4184 


Petition for review, by a citizen and national of New Zealand, of a final removal order of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is denied where:

  1. the evidence is more than sufficient to prove petitioner signed a VWP waiver;
  2. petitioner cannot invalidate his removal order as he cannot demonstrate he was “substantially prejudiced” by his allegedly unknowing waiver; and
  3. petitioner is not entitled to purse a marriage-based adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. section 1255(c)(4), because although he was once statutorily eligible under section 1255(c)(4), he may not after the expiration of his 90-day stay, adjust his status as a defense to removal.


Azie v. Holder, No. 09-1346

In a petition for review of the denial of petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, the petition is denied where:

  1. petitioner, through counsel, had ample opportunity at her hearing to raise her lack of comprehension or inability to coherently respond, but did not; and
  2. the record reflected that the Immigration Judge’s credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons.


Vasquez v. Holder, No. 05-73714

In a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for an extreme hardship waiver of removal, the petition is granted where an alien whose legal status as the spouse of a citizen is later terminated because the marriage was fraudulent is eligible for discretionary relief from removal.





Singh v. Holder, No. 08-70434

In a petition for review of the denial of petitioner’s asylum application, the petition is denied where:

1) the Immigration Judge (IJ) possessed the authority to require corroborating evidence; and

2) the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to carry his burden to prove his date of entry was proper.

Hammad v. Holder, No. 07-72370

In a petition for review of the BIA’s determination that petitioner was not entitled to permanent resident status, the petition is denied where:

1) 8 U.S.C. section 1186a(b) puts the burden of proof on the government to prove that his marriage was fraudulent;

2) given the numerous inconsistencies in his testimony, petitioner failed to carry his burden to prove that his marriage was bona fide; and

3) because petitioner’s extreme hardship argument was based on the effect his removal would have on a family from his second marriage, which did not exist during his two-year conditional resident status, he did not qualify for a waiver on that ground.

Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, No. 05-74350

In a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for adjustment of status due to his marriage to a U.S. citizen and cancellation of removal, the petition is granted where the State of California dismissed prior charges against petitioner under California Penal Code section 1210.1, and thus those charges could not be used to render petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Sum v. Holder, No. 05-75776

In a petition for review of the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for an 8 U.S.C. section 212(h) waiver of removal because he was convicted of a qualifying offense after his admission as a lawful permanent resident (LPR), the petition is denied where, because petitioner was “admitted” as an LPR in the sense of being inspected and authorized at the port of entry, but later convicted, he was barred from section 212(h) relief.

Share →
cellalaw_aila_member
English English    Russian Russian   Espanol Espanol   Privacy policy

This website has been developed to be a useful and informative tool for clients and prospective clients. It is possible that information contained herein may change from time to time and while accurate at the date of publication, may not be accurate as at the time you access this website. We provide no warranty or take any responsibility (or liability) for any loss or damage (either direct or consequential) that may be suffered due to reliance on the information published on this website.