Set Text Size:

S

S

S

2013

  • CA5 Says Drug Trafficking Conviction Is Not Required for Removal Under §212(a)(2)(C)(540 KB - 12/27/2013)
    The court dismissed the petition, finding that a prior drug trafficking conviction was not required for removal under §212(a)(2)(C), and that DHS presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate it had “reason to believe” petitioner was an illegal drug trafficker. (Cuevas v. Holder, 12/10/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13122746.
  • CA5 Denies Adjustment to VAWA Self-Petitioner with K-1 Visa(512 KB - 10/7/2013)
    The court denied the petition, finding that although the petitioner’s VAWA self-petition was granted, she was not eligible to adjust status under INA §245(d) because she did not marry her K-1 citizen-petitioner from a prior relationship. (Le v. Att’y Gen, 10/3/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13100740.
  • CA5 Holds Expedited Removal Applies to All Noncitizens(555 KB - 10/2/2013)
    The court denied the petition, holding that INA §238(b)’s expedited removal process applies to all noncitizens, including those who entered unlawfully, who are convicted of an aggravated felony, and who are not admitted for permanent residence. (Valdiviez-Hernandez v. Holder, 9/26/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13100201.
  • CA5 Finds AAO, BIA, DHS Relied on Nonexistent Mexican Law in Removal Case(562 KB - 9/23/2013)
    After noting that the AAO, the BIA, and DHS relied on a nonexistent Mexican law that out of wedlock children can only be legitimized by the subsequent marriage of their parents, the court found U.S. citizenship for the petitioner under §§ 301, 309 and remanded. (Saldana v. Holder, 9/11/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13092347.
  • CA5 Remands Case for Anti-Maoist Asylum Seeker from Nepal(476 KB - 9/23/2013)
    The court vacated and remanded, finding the BIA incorrectly required the petitioner to provide direct proof of the nexus between his persecution and his membership in Nepal’s Student Union, and did not consider all the evidence bearing upon the Maoists’ motives. (Sharma v. Holder, 9/9/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13092346.
  • CA5 Finds Petitioner Could Not Show Prejudice of English-Only Notice of Hearing (NOH)(107 KB - 8/28/2013)
    The court upheld the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen the in absentia deportation proceedings, finding since the OSC was written in Spanish, the petitioner could not show prejudice the NOH was only in English, as he also claimed he did not receive the NOH at all. (Ojeda v. Holder, 8/8/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13082843.
  • CA5 En Banc Court Strikes Down Farmers Branch Housing Ordinance(1174 KB - 7/23/2013)
    The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. U.S. to hold that the ordinance, aimed at preventing undocumented individuals from renting housing in the city, conflicted with federal immigration law. (Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, TX,, 7/22/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13072346.
  • CA5 on Derivative Citizenship Under Former INA §321(465 KB - 6/7/2013)
    The court held that the petitioner did not derive citizenship under former INA §321 because his mother was not legally separated from his father when she naturalized. (Joseph v. Holder, 5/29/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13060746.
  • CA5 on the Definition of Lawful Status(565 KB - 5/7/2013)
    The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioners were not in lawful status after their L-1A and L-2 visas expired, despite having an adjustment of status application pending, because adjustment of status was ultimately denied. (Dhuka v. Holder, 5/3/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13050748.
  • CA5 Finds DHS Collaterally Estopped from TRIG Finding Against Asylee(488 KB - 3/11/2013)
    The court found that the government was collaterally estopped from finding that the plaintiff provided material support to a terrorist organization when it reviewed his LPR application. (Amrollah v. Napolitano, 3/4/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13031155.
  • CA5 Holds Texas Conviction Is Not Categorically an Aggravated Felony(518 KB - 1/17/2013)
    The court held that a conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.011(a)(1) for sexual assault is not categorically an aggravated felony because portions of the statute do not inherently involve a substantial risk of physical force. (Rodriguez v. Holder, 1/16/13)
    AILA Doc. No. 13011750.
 
Copyright © 1993–2014, American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Suite 300, 1331 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
Copyright & Reprint Policy
Contact Us