Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Romero v. Garland
"Romero had been admitted before he applied for adjustment of status. Thus, he is not now an “applicant for admission,” and therefore the “clearly and beyond doubt” burden does not apply. Rather, the “preponderance of the evidence” burden from 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) applies. ... [W]e remand for the BIA to reconsider whether Romero met his burden to show by a “preponderance of the evidence” under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) that he was not inadmissible."
[Hats off to Luther Snavely and Reza Athari!]