In re: Man, A DANG a.k.a. Stanley Dang: Removal Barred by Change in Law
This case demonstrates the importance of having the guidance of an experienced defense lawyer.
News & Politics
Matter of N-V-G: Three-Prong Test for Waiver of Inadmissibility
This case is important because it gives those that entered the United States as refugees a broader range of protections from lawyers in removal proceedings.
Valarezo-Tirado v. US AG: Immigration Judges Must Give Reasons for Their Decisions
It is a shame the immigration courts are satisfied with incomplete rushed decisions by judges with no background or understanding of immigration law.
Singh v. Garland: Border Between Asylum and Withholding of Removal
The withholding of removal is similar to asylum. The applicant has to prove that it is more likely than not that he will be persecuted.
Singh v. AG: Naturalized Citizens Cannot Be Deported
If the government is sufficiently motivated, it could initiate de-naturalization proceedings against Mr. Singh because he obtained his citizenship by fraud.
Matter of Kagumbas: Fake Marriage Can Mean Deportation
At the hearing, the couple gave conflicting information concerning their place of residence, date of marriage, and the length of time in which they lived together.
Matter of Jorge Moradel: “Specific-Possession” Exception to Deportation
The immigration court decided that the criminal conviction made him ineligible for admission to the U.S, and that he could not try to get a waiver.
Immigration Attorneys May Benefit Individuals Threatened with Deportation
As the numbers of deported individuals in New Jersey fluctuates, legal immigrants need to be aware of their rights and the importance of providing application support documentation.
Carrying Capacity Still Matters Today
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is likely to cause food shortfalls in a world that has already pushed the boundaries of its carrying capacity to feed everyone.
Sotero-Rivera Mendoza: BIA Holds Child Neglect as Grounds for Removal
Because Mr. Rivera-Mendoza had been convicted of a disqualifying offense under section 237(a)(2) of the INA, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.