Set Text Size:

S

S

S

2004 - 2002

  • CA4 Holds INA § 242(b)(5) Does Not Bar Habeas Review of Nationality Claim By Criminal Alien (11/22/2004)
    Although INA § 242(b)(5) provides for review of nationality claims only in the circuit courts, the district court held that a petitioner who did not file a petition for review could obtain habeas review because his criminal offense barred him from eligibility to file a petition for review with the circuit court. (Dragenice v. Ashcroft, 11/5/04). AILA Doc. No. 04112213.
  • CA4 Vacates Asylum, Withholding & CAT Denials Based on IJ’s Failure to Consider Independent Evidence Establishing Past Persecution (8/17/2004)
    Although the court affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility determination, it found that the IJ erroneously ignored reliable, independent evidence demonstrating past persecution that supported petitioner’s relief applications. (Camara v. Ashcroft, 8/6/04). AILA Doc. No. 04081764.
  • CA4 Holds INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) Cannot Be Applied Retroactively to LPR Returning From Abroad (10/26/2004)
    The court held that the provision attached new legal consequences to petitioner’s pre-IIRIRA decision to plead guilty by subjecting him to removal proceedings as an LPR seeking entry into the US. The court also held that reliance is not relevant to retroactivity analysis. (Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 10/19/04). AILA Doc. No. 04102612.
  • CA4 Finds it Lacks Authority to Reinstate or Stay Voluntary Departure Period in Permanent Rule Cases (7/27/2004)
    The Fourth Circuit reasoned that IIRIRA’s changes to the INA, including the elimination of judicial review over the denial of a request for voluntary departure, withdrew the court’s ability to reinstate or stay the voluntary departure period. (Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 6/10/2004). AILA Doc. No. 04072761.
  • CA4 Holds Recission Proceedings Proper More Than Five Years After Adjustment (4/12/2004)
    The Court found permissible the government’s charging of deportability five years after lawful permanent resident status was granted (on a ground that would have supported rescission if charged within five years of the grant) where the same grounds that justify deportation would also support rescission of status. (Asika v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04). AILA Doc. No. 04041270.
  • CA4 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure (4/12/2004)
    The Court found that review of the IJ's decision provides the reasoned basis for meaningfully review, there's no due process in any given number of reviewing judges, and the AWO procedure is a mere regulatory change that does not attach new legal consequences to past events. (Belbruno v. Ashcroft, 3/29/04). AILA Doc. No. 04041269.
  • CA4 Rejects Legalization Claim of A-2 Visa Holder (12/24/2003)
    The Fourth Circuit found it had jurisdiction to review an IRCA legalization claim, but, citing exemptions of A-2 status holders from deportation, rejected the claim that petitioner had been in unlawful status due to working without authorization while holding A-2 status. (Orquera v. Ashcroft 12/1/03). AILA Doc. No. 09122421.
  • CA4 Issues Precedent Decision on the Use of Video(42 KB - 7/23/2002)
    In Rusu v. INS, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the use of video conferencing in removal proceedings. Although the court did not find prejudice in the individual case, it held that video conferenced hearings may violate due process in some cases because it could negatively affect the respondent's credibility and restrict the respondent's access to counsel.