DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
"Although the Hearing Transcript from July 15, 2008 indicates that the applicant's assault was committed against a police officer and that the applicant's actions resulted in scrapes and bruises to the police office, the Hearing Transcript states that the applicant was convicted of a misdemeanor and not a felony. Thus, the applicant was clearly convicted of simple assault under Maryland Code Art 27, § 12A(a) and (b), and not assault involving an aggravated dimension like assault on a police officer, under Maryland Code Art 27, § 12A(c). Furthermore, assault crimes involving aggravating factors in Maryland are generally covered by first degree assault, which includes assaults causing or attempting to cause serious bodily injury and assaults with a firearm. See Maryland Code, Criminal Law, §3-202. Upon reviewing the record and the statute of conviction, we find that the applicant's conviction was for simple assault and it is not a crime involving moral turpitude that renders the applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act. Moreover, because the applicant's conviction is not a crime involving moral turpitude, 8 C.F.R. 212.7(d) is not applicable to his case." - Matter of X-, July 18, 2014. [Hats off to Michelle N. Mendez, Senior Managing Attorney, Catholic Charities DC!]