Case Summaries
Immigration Law
[03/10]
Vila v. US Atty. Gen.
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for a waiver of inadmissibility, the petition is denied where, because petitioner's approved I-140 visa petition did not make him a lawful resident under section 212(h) when the Immigration and Naturalization Service formally approved his application for adjustment, petitioner did not lawfully reside continuously in the U.S. for the seven years preceding the initiation of his removal proceedings on October 25, 2003.
[03/09]
Tampubolon v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioners' asylum application, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred in failing to apply disfavored group analysis to petitioners' withholding claim because the record compelled a finding that Christians in Indonesia are a disfavored group. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA's failure to address two irrelevant cases did not render the proceeding fundamentally unfair.
[03/09]
Najmabadi v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the basis of changed conditions in Iran, the petition is denied where: 1) substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the evidence petitioner submitted in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the original hearing; and 2) there was no evidence establishing that returnees from the U.S. would likely face persecution.
[03/09]
Thu v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal from a denial of petitioner's asylum application and related relief, the petition is denied where: 1) the Immigration Judge's credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief; and 2) the evidence in the record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.
[03/09]
Sadhvani v. Holder
A petition for review by a native of Togo of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen asylum application is denied as the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion based on the statutory requirement that one must be present in the United States to be eligible for asylum, and here, because petitioner was removed pursuant to a valid order of removal, he no longer can pursue his asylum application.
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|
