Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1
ImmigrationProf Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Stay on Top of the Latest Legal Developments

By immigrationprof

For recent caselaw developments (courtesy of Dan Kowalski and Bender’s), check often:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/immigration_cases.asp

Here are some samples:

1. “Reason to Believe Victory”

http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web940.pdf

In an unpublished decision dated December 5, 2005 a three-member panel of the BIA (PAULEY, Osuna, Filppu) vacated an IJ’s decision regarding INA Sec.  212(a)(2)(C)(i), the “reason to believe” provision. To sustain a “trafficking” charge, the conduct must be of a “business or merchant”  nature. Simply cultivating fifteen marijuana plants and some seedlings for personal use – even though punishable under the Controlled Substances Act as a trafficking offense – is not sufficiently a drug-related commercial activity to sustain a finding of inadmissibility. Remanded for adjustment of status as unmarried son of LPR with current priority date. Matter of Noyola-Montalvo, A23-006-885. Represented by Deborah S. Smith of Helena, Montana.

2. Successful Joseph Remand

http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web936.pdf

In an unpublished decision dated November 14, 2005, and pursuant to Matter of Joseph, 22 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 1999), a three-member panel of the BIA (GRANT, Moscato, Pauley) remanded an IJ’s mandatory detention decision back to the IJ, finding that ICE is substantially unlikely to prevail on the aggravated felony charge in the NTA. Matter of Yeremin, A46-792-869 – Detroit. Represented by George P. Mann of Farmington Hills, Michigan.

3. No Fraud, No Waiver Needed

http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web934.pdf

In an unpublished decision dated November 4, 2005 a three member panel of the BIA (Holmes, Hurwitz, MILLER) reversed an IJ’s decision and granted adjustment of status. The IJ had held the Respondent lied, lacked good moral character, was undeserving of relief as a matter of discretion, and was not eligible for a 212(i) waiver. On appeal, the BIA found no fraud and therefore no need for a waiver. The Board also found Respondent to be worthy of relief. Represented by Richard A. Geduldig of New York, New York.

KJ