LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
CA9 Rejects Matter of Richardson: USA v. Garcia-Santana (Conspiracy Requires Overt Act)

"... [ Matter of] Richardson [25 I&N Dec. 226 (BIA 2010) ] interpreted “conspiracy” under § 1101(a)(43)(U) as referring to the common-law definition, and thus as omitting any overt-act requirement. ... We cannot accept this interpretation. ... We conclude ... that the BIA’s...

CA9 on Right to Notice: Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder

"At the outset of her removal proceedings, Odilia de Jesus Velasquez-Escovar gave immigration officials her current address in Los Angeles. But those officials did not properly record it. Instead, they recorded another outdated address and then sent Velasquez’s hearing notice there. Velasquez...

CA9 on Clear Error: Zumel v. Lynch

"Assuming that intent under § 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b) is a factual question, the BIA here erred in failing to apply the clear error standard of review to the IJ’s resolution of the intent issue. ... Because the BIA did not acknowledge the proper standard of review, ignored facts found...