BIA on Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006: 3 Precedent Decisions

On May 20, 2014 the BIA issued three precedent decisions regarding the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.  Here are the headnotes and links:

- In adjudicating cases involving the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, the Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review a “no risk” determination by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the appropriate standard of proof to be applied. - Matter of Tatiana ACEIJAS-QUIROZ, Beneficiary of a visa petition filed by Aubrey Edward Haverly, Petitioner, 26 I&N Dec. 294 (BIA 2014)

- (1) In a visa petition case involving the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, the petitioner bears the burden of proving that he has not been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor.” (2) In assessing whether a petitioner has been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor,” adjudicators may apply the “circumstance-specific” approach, which permits an inquiry into the facts and conduct underlying the conviction to determine if it is for a disqualifying offense. - Matter of Iris INTROCASO, Beneficiary of a visa petition filed by Russell Leopold Introcaso, Petitioner, 26 I&N Dec. 304 (BIA 2014)

- Section 402(a)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 622, which bars the approval of a family-based visa petition filed by a petitioner who has been convicted of a “specified offense against a minor” and has not shown that he poses “no risk” to the beneficiary, does not have an impermissible retroactive effect when applied to convictions that occurred before its enactment. - Matter of Eunice Villaluna JACKSON, Respondent, and Matter of Geruen Hewlett Andreu Villaluna ERANDIO, Respondent, 26 I&N Dec. 314 (BIA 2014)