Set Text Size:

S

S

S

2012

  • CA7 Rejects Argument that BIA Failed to Consider Evidence(555 KB - 12/20/2012)
    The court upheld the denial of the petitioner’s cancellation of removal application, finding that the BIA did not fail to consider evidence of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” in its decisions. (Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder, 12/18/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12122052.
  • CA7 Denies Motion to Reopen Based on Change in Country Conditions(531 KB - 12/4/2012)
    The asylum applicant argued her case should be reopened due to the birth of her two USC children and the enforcement of China’s family planning policy, but the court held there was a change in personal circumstances, not country conditions. (Zheng v. Holder, 11/27/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12120451.
  • CA7 Holds Political Opinion Was Not Central Motivation for Persecution of Asylum Applicant(536 KB - 12/4/2012)
    The court rejected the argument that the IJ improperly required political opinion to be the “primary” reason the petitioner was persecuted, finding that substantial evidence showed political opinion was not a central motivation. (Shaikh v. Holder, 11/26/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12120448.
  • CA7 Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Asylum Regulation(512 KB - 11/21/2012)
    The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner’s asylum application was untimely, rejecting the argument that 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5)(iv) is unconstitutionally vague. (Vrljicak v. Holder, 11/20/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12112146.
  • CA7 Holds §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) Trumps §245(i)(551 KB - 10/31/2012)
    The court held that INA §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) precludes the petitioner from applying for adjustment of status pursuant to INA §245(i) or seeking a retroactive waiver of inadmissibility under 8 C.F.R. §212.2(e). (Nunez-Moron v. Holder, 10/30/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12103147.
  • CA7 Denies Mexican Asylum and CAT Relief Claim(532 KB - 10/24/2012)
    The court denied or dismissed three consolidated petitions for review filed by the Mexican petitioner, holding that it had no jurisdiction to review one petition and that the petitioner was not entitled to asylum or CAT relief. (Cruz-Mayaho v. Holder, 10/17/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12102444.
  • CA7 Holds IJ and BIA Erred in Considering 212(h) Waiver(547 KB - 10/19/2012)
    The court held that the IJ and BIA relied on improper evidence in determining that the petitioner failed to exhibit rehabilitation, and that they overlooked material evidence related to the potential hardship his USC wife would suffer. (Lam v. Holder, 10/16/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12101952.
  • CA7 Upholds Ortego-Cabrera on Good Moral Character for Cancellation of Removal(608 KB - 10/17/2012)
    The court held cancellation applicants must show good moral character in the 10 years immediately preceding a final administrative decision, and found the petitioner’s recent incarceration barred him from qualifying. (Duron-Ortiz v. Holder, 10/15/12, amended 11/6/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12101746.
  • CA7 Finds It Has Jurisdiction Over Naturalization Case(525 KB - 10/15/2012)
    The court held that the district court has jurisdiction to review a naturalization denial and issue a declaratory judgment while removal proceedings are pending, noting USCIS acted on the application before DHS began proceedings. (Klene v. Napolitano, 10/12/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12101543.
  • CA7 Finds Adjustment Applicant Knowingly Filed Frivolous Asylum Application(275 KB - 10/2/2012)
    The court found that the petitioner is ineligible for adjustment because he knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application with USCIS, and held that the written advisals provided on Form I–589 are sufficient notice under INA §208(d)(4)(A). (Pavlov v. Holder, 10/1/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12100269.
  • CA7 Finds No Jurisdiction to Review Motion to Reopen(511 KB - 9/6/2012)
    The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s motion to reopen the reinstatement order. (Tapia-Lemos v. Holder, 8/31/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12090645.
  • CA7 Denies Withholding Request Based on Factory Protest(526 KB - 9/6/2012)
    The court denied the petitioner’s request for withholding of removal, finding that his protest at a state-owned factory was economic, not political, activity and that any persecution he endured was not because of a protected ground. (Liu v. Holder, 8/31/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12090660.
  • CA7 Remands for Fact Finding in Alien Voter Case(510 KB - 8/24/2012)
    The LPR petitioner argued that she did not violate 18 U.S.C. §611 because state officials led her to believe it was legal for her to vote, and the court remanded to the IJ for further fact finding. (Keathley v. Holder, 8/22/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12082442.
  • CA7 Holds Petitioner Is Inadmissible for Voting(529 KB - 8/24/2012)
    The court found that the petitioner violated 18 U.S.C. §611 when he voted, rejecting his “entrapment by estoppel” argument because he did not show that he received official assurance that voting was lawful. (Kimani v. Holder, 8/22/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12082441.
  • CA7 on Untimely Motions to Reopen(545 KB - 8/20/2012)
    The court found the petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely filed with the BIA, noting that he did not adequately preserve an argument for review, and held he did not qualify for equitable tolling due to ineffective assistance. (El-Gazawy v. Holder, 8/16/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12082046.
  • CA7 Rejects Ineffective Assistance Claim Based on Failure to Notify Counsel(530 KB - 8/7/2012)
    The court found that Petitioner failed to comply with Lozada’s notification-to-counsel requirement, rejecting his argument that compliance with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission rules was sufficient. (Marinov v. Holder, 8/1/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12080751.
  • CA7 Finds I-864 Sponsored Immigrant Has No Duty to Mitigate(533 KB - 7/23/2012)
    The court found that an I-864 affidavit of support sponsor was required to continue providing support in accordance with the I-864, even though the sponsored immigrant failed to mitigate damages by actively searching for employment. (Liu v. Mund, 7/12/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12072353.
  • CA7 Upholds Cancellation and Adjustment Denial Due to Immigration Fraud (Updated 9/2/12)(635 KB - 9/2/2012)
    The court upheld the BIA’s conclusion that the petitioner had engaged in immigration fraud and was ineligible for cancellation or adjustment, noting that the record revealed the IJ didn’t ignore testimony or skip analysis. (Jawad v. Holder, revised 8/30/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12071643.
  • CA7 Holds It Cannot Review BIA Denial of Motion to Reopen Sua Sponte(527 KB - 6/19/2012)
    The court held that the BIA’s decision not to reopen a case sua sponte is an unreviewable discretionary decision, and that Kucana did not disturb prior circuit precedent on denied motions to reopen sua sponte. (Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder, 6/14/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12061947.
  • CA7 to Rehear Asylum Case on Particular Social Group En Banc(532 KB - 6/5/2012)
    The court ordered that Cece v. Holder – a decision in an asylum case which held the petitioner’s proposed social group lacked the required common, immutable characteristic - be reheard en banc. (Cece v. Holder, 5/31/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12060556.
  • CA7 on Tolling of 90-Day Period for Filing a Motion to Reopen(533 KB - 5/21/2012)
    The court held that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the BIA’s initial dismissal of an appeal, regardless of whether a motion to reconsider is pending. (Sarmiento v. Holder, 5/21/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12052152.
  • CA7 Upholds Denial of Mexican Petitioner’s Cancellation Application(305 KB - 3/23/2012)
    The court found that the IJ’s behavior did not prevent the petitioner from having a reasonable opportunity to present his case, nor was the petitioner prejudiced by the exclusion of testimony that he argued was inappropriately excluded. (Delgado v. Holder, 3/22/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12032374.
  • CA7 on Jurisdiction to Review a Cancellation of Removal Decision(77 KB - 3/15/2012)
    The court discussed when it has jurisdiction to review a ruling in a cancellation of removal case, ultimately finding it could not reverse the BIA’s weighing of hardships against considerations favoring removal of this petitioner. (Munoz-Pacheco v. Holder, 3/14/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12031565.
  • CA7 Reverses Harboring Conviction(490 KB - 2/6/2012)
    The court found that no trier of fact could reasonably find that the defendant had “harbored” her boyfriend based on the stipulated facts, noting that harboring was not the same as merely providing a place to stay. (U.S. v. Costello, 1/31/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12020670.
  • CA7 on Particular Social Group in Albanian Asylum Case(720 KB - 2/6/2012)
    The court found that the social group of “young Albanian women in danger of being trafficked for prostitution” lacked the common, immutable characteristic required of a particular social group. (Cece v. Holder, 2/6/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12020669.
  • CA7 on Withholding of Removal and China’s “One-Child” Policy(81 KB - 1/31/2012)
    The court found that the petitioner did not prove that it was more likely than not she would be persecuted because of her opposition to China’s “one child” policy if she returns to China. (Zheng v. Holder, 1/31/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12013171.
  • CA7 Remands LIFE Act Legalization Case to AAO(368 KB - 1/13/2012)
    The court found that pre-IIRIRA law on the definition of “conviction” should apply to the petitioner’s application for legalization under the LIFE Act, and that the AAO’s decision on continuous residence lacked individualized analysis. (Siddiqui v. Holder, 1/12/12)
    AILA Doc. No. 12011367.