Hamed Aleaziz, New York Times, Oct. 4, 2024 (gift link) "The Biden administration said Friday it would allow the temporary legal permission for migrants from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, and Nicaragua...
Singh v. Garland (2-1) "Jaswinder Singh, a citizen and native of India, appeals the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”...
CGRS, Oct. 1, 2024 "Last night, a federal judge ruled in a case challenging the Biden administration’s policy of turning back asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the southern...
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Oct. 2, 2024 " FREE WEBINAR Today, Oct. 2 from 3-4pm Eastern, 2-3pm Central, 12-1 Pacific On September 26, a U...
USCIS, Oct. 2, 2024 "U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is issuing policy guidance in our Policy Manual to further clarify the types of evidence that we may evaluate to determine eligibility...
Matter of D. Rodriguez, 28 I&N Dec. 815 (BIA 2024)
(1) A conviction for an attempt to commit a crime may constitute a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (2018).
(2) The respondent’s conviction for attempted injury to a child under sections 15.01(a) and 22.04(a)(1) of the Texas Penal Code renders him removable under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), for having committed a crime of child abuse.
"The respondent was convicted in a Texas court of attempted injury to a child and found removable for having committed a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment. On appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision, he challenges his removability on two grounds. First, he contends that a crime of child abuse does not encompass attempts because they are not expressly included in the statutory language. Second, he claims that attempted injury does not require a sufficient likelihood of harm to qualify as a crime of child abuse. We reject both of the respondent’s arguments regarding removability. We further conclude that the Immigration Judge properly denied cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed."