Lopez Orellana v. Garland "The question presented here is whether the Louisiana accessory-after-the-fact statute, LA.REV. STAT. § 14:25, is a categorical match for the generic federal offense...
USCIS, Sept. 18, 2024 "Effective Sept. 10, 2024, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services automatically extended the validity of Permanent Resident Cards (also known as Green Cards) to 36 months...
Singh v. Garland "Petitioner Varinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks rescission of a removal order entered in absentia. We previously granted Singh’s petition because the government...
BIB Daily presents bimonthly PERM practice tips from Ron Wada , member of the Editorial Board for Bender’s Immigration Bulletin and author of the 10+ year series of BALCA review articles, “Shaping...
Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland "Petitioner Bessy Orbelina Castellanos-Ventura, a native and citizen of Honduras, seeks review of an April 19, 2021 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA...
"Petitioners Elvis Leonel Aldana Ramos ("Elvis") and Robin Obdulio Aldana Ramos ("Robin") seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The BIA concluded that the petitioners had not made the requisite showings that they were or will be persecuted on account of membership in a protected social group or that it is more likely than not that they would be tortured by government authorities upon returning to their home country. Because the BIA's conclusion as to the asylum claim is legally flawed and is not supported by the record as currently developed, we grant the petition in part and remand to the BIA for further proceedings as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims. We deny the petition as to the CAT claim. ...
The BIA's decision as to petitioners' asylum claim was not supported by substantial evidence because it neglected the evidence in support of petitioners' claim and was based on a legal error because it did not allow for the possibility of mixed motives. The decision as to the CAT claim, on the other hand, was supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the petition for review is granted in part and denied in part. We vacate the BIA's decision as to the asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Aldana-Ramos v. Holder, Aug. 8, 2014. [Hats off to former IJ William P. Joyce!]