Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner
Deportation Lawyers & Immigration Attorneys Helping Families Nationwide
The court upheld the BIA’s decision that a conviction for online solicitation of a minor, even when no actual child is involved, qualifies as a “crime of child abuse” under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(i) and supports removal. It found that the statute covers offenses posing a high risk of harm to children, including attempted solicitation. The court also upheld the BIA’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
And In Chanchavac Garcia v. Bondi, the First Circuit found that the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasoning for denying cancellation of removal to Guatemalan petitioners, particularly regarding the potential hardship to their United States citizen child with learning disabilities. The court also held that the BIA’s dismissal of their ineffective assistance of counsel claim was too thin to permit meaningful judicial review. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings.
EOIR published an interim final rule (IFR) that reduces the size of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) from 28 to 15 members, effective today.
The Board published its decision in Matter of O–A–R–G–, et al., which held that claims based on “former” status in a particular social group (PSG) must show that harm was motivated by that status itself, not by past conduct, and concluded that the respondent—a former Colombian police officer—did not meet the standards for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Late last month, media reports indicated that USCIS had halted the processing of green card applications for asylees and refugees.
The Seattle Times reports that a federal judge in Seattle just told the Trump Administration it has to actually follow through on bringing in refugees who were approved for resettlement before Inauguration Day.
The judge had already issued an order back in February, but the Administration was accused of dodging it—reinstating agreements with resettlement agencies only to suspend them right after. Now the court is requiring a detailed plan with deadlines and regular updates to make sure the government sticks to its word
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the BIA erred by ignoring evidence that the petitioner may face torture if removed to Honduras and improperly reweighed evidence about government acquiescence to future torture. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings
The First Circuit has recognized that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
has a settled course of adjudication of granting unopposed motions to remand for non-citizens to seek adjustment of status.
“The question is whether there is a ‘settled course”,‘
by the BIA of routinely granting such unopposed remand requests,
so that petitioners in removal proceedings may proceed for an adjustment of status.
As a matter of law,
it is arbitrary and capricious for the BIA to suddenly and inexplicably depart from established policies, including its own precedents.
Badose asserts that this is exactly what happened here.
As noted, the government has not refuted that proposition.”
The court also noted
BIA is prohibited from engaging
in factfinding in connection
with a motion to reopen, and not only in its adjudication of an appeal.
“On the record before us,
we can only conclude that the BIA improperly denied Badose’s unopposed remand motion both by arbitrarily deviating
from a standard course of practice and by improperly engaging in factfinding in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).
Badose is therefore entitled to a remand to the IJ
so that he can present his case for adjustment of status based on his marriage.”
The full text of Badose v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/23-1156P2-01A.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has confirmed that the Attorney General has an independent statutory authority to appoint (and renew the appointment of) temporary members of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
This authority is not affected by the regulation prescribing the authority of the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review to appoint temporary Board members. Finally, the Fourth Circuit construed that regulation as permitting renewable appointments by the Director.
The full text of Salomon-Guillen v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231723.P.pdf
BIA Redefines Money Laundering Analysis Using Case-Specific Criteria
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that for the purpose of assessing whether an offense constitutes a money laundering aggravated felony,
The circumstance-specific approach applies to the requirement that the “amount of the funds exceeded $10,000.”
The full text of Matter of Dominguez Reyes can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-12/4083.pdf
Overview: Legal Basis for the Remand Request
Immigration Law
A request for remand was not frivolous where the Board of Immigration Appeals plainly erred in construing California Penal Code §1473.7(a)(1) and a state court order that had set aside petitioner’s plea as constitutionally deficient.
The BIA ruled that an candidate may seek withholding of removal from a country. Even if that country is different from the country of removal originally designated in the reinstated. Removal order on which the withholding-only proceedings are based. A person who is granted withholding of removal may never leave the United States without executing that removal order, …