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...
Jang v. Garland
"Petitioner Jung Hee Jang, a native and citizen of South Korea, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of Jang’s application for cancellation of removal. In re Jung Hee Jang, No. A206-223-573 (B.I.A. Nov. 20, 2019), aff’g No. A206-223-573 (Immig. Ct. N.Y.C. Apr. 19, 2018). The agency found Jang ineligible for cancellation because of her state conviction for attempted second-degree money laundering, see N.Y. Penal L. § 470.15(1)(b)(ii)(A), which it deemed a “crime involving moral turpitude” (“CIMT”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). We agree with Jang that, because her crime of conviction lacks the requisite scienter, it is not a CIMT. She is therefore eligible for cancellation of removal. ... The statute of Jang’s conviction does not require an “intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government,” Mendez, 960 F.3d at 88, or intent to conceal the underlying crime that created the criminal proceeds. The knowledge required for conviction under § 470.15(1)(b)(ii)(A) falls well short of the depravity described by the BIA as requisite for a CIMT. The BIA therefore erred in treating Jang’s conviction for money laundering in the second degree as a CIMT and on that basis denying her application for cancellation of removal. ... For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is GRANTED. The case is REMANDED to the agency for further consideration of Jang’s application."
[Hats off to David K.S. Kim!]