Set Text Size:

S

S

S

2011 - 2009

  • CA10 on “Illegal Re-entry” for Purposes of Reinstatement of Removal(228 KB - 10/19/2011)
    The court held that where Petitioner was waived through at the border one month after her removal from the U.S., she “re-enter[ed] the United States illegally” for purposes of reinstatement of removal under INA §241(a)(5). (Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 10/17/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11101966.
  • CA10 Says No IJ Error in Refusing Continuance for FB-4 §245(i) Beneficiary(63 KB - 10/3/2011)
    The court held that although an IJ may continue proceedings pending adjudication of an I-130 with a current priority date, an IJ need not grant an indefinite continuance to await eligibility for adjustment. (Luevano v. Holder, 9/30/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11100330.
  • CA10 Rejects Political Opinion and Social Group Claim in MS-13 Case(511 KB - 9/8/2011)
    The court found that Salvadoran women aged 12 to 25 who have resisted gang recruitment is sufficiently particular for purposes of a social group claim, but found that the proposed group failed the social visibility test. (Rivera-Barrientos v. Holder, 9/7/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11090864.
  • CA10 Says Padilla Does Not Apply Retroactively(252 KB - 8/31/2011)
    The court found that although Padilla creates a new constitutional duty to inform a non-citizen criminal defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea, it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. (U.S. v. Hong, 8/30/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11083171.
  • CA10 Says Colorado Felony Menacing Is an Aggravated Felony(26 KB - 8/10/2011)
    The court held a conviction for felony menacing under Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-3-206(a) or (b) necessarily involves the threatened use of physical force and is therefore, an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 USC §16(a). (Damaso-Mendoza v. Holder, 8/9/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11081065.
  • CA10 Dismisses, Says Petitioner Failed to Raise Substantial Constitutional Issue(19 KB - 8/9/2011)
    The court held that Petitioner’s due process and equal protection arguments failed to demonstrate that he did not receive a fair hearing or was treated differently and that he failed to present a substantial constitutional issue. (Pizano-Zeferino v. Holder, 8/8/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11080961.
  • CA10 Grants Rehearing En Banc in “Departure Bar” Case(214 KB - 8/3/2011)
    The court granted rehearing en banc to revisit its prior holding that 8 CFR §1003.2(d) precludes consideration of a removed alien’s motion to reopen when filed within the 90 day time limit. AILA and AIC appear as amici. (Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 8/2/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11080364.
  • CA10 Finds Jurisdiction to Review Continuance Denial in Light of Kucana(220 KB - 6/29/2011)
    Reversing course from Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, the court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kucana v. Holder makes it clear that the denial of a request for a continuance is reviewable. (Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, 6/28/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11062963.
  • CA10 Says Constitutionality of Plea Is Not an Element of Proving “Conviction”(27 KB - 6/23/2011)
    The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that in light of Padilla v. Kentucky, the government must prove in immigration proceedings that the alien received constitutionally adequate advice about the consequences of his criminal plea. (Waugh v. Holder, 6/22/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11062364.
  • CA10 Rejects BIA Interpretation of Moral Turpitude in Tobar-Lobo (54 KB - 5/2/2011)
    The court vacated the order of removal, finding that a violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-3-412.5(1)(a), (3), misdemeanor failure to register as a sex offender, is not a crime involving moral turpitude. (Efagene v. Holder, 4/29/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11050261.
  • CA10 Accords Chevron Deference to Matter of Briones(93 KB - 3/15/2011)
    The BIA was justified in departing from the law of the case and the court’s mandate in following Briones and concluding that petitioner could not adjust under §245(i) because he was inadmissible under §212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). (Padilla-Caldera v. Holder, 3/14/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11031562.
  • CA10 Upholds Denial of Christian Indonesian Asylum Claim(35 KB - 1/31/2011)
    The court found that the harm suffered by Petitioner did not rise to the level of persecution and that her returns to Indonesia, and the presence of family in Indonesia without further violence, undercut her fear of future persecution. (Ritonga v. Holder, 1/28/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11013164.
  • CA10 Says No §212(h) Waiver for Possession of Marijuana in a Drug-Free Zone(215 KB - 1/27/2011)
    The court found that possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in a drug-free zone in violation of Utah Code Ann. §58-37-8(2)(a)(i) and (4)(a)(ix) is not “simple possession” that would qualify for a waiver under INA §212(h). (Olivan-Duenas v. Holder, 1/26/11)
    AILA Doc. No. 11012764.
  • CA10 Clarifies “Sua Sponte Exhaustion” Rule under Sidabutar(62 KB - 12/27/2010)
    In order for Petitioner to pursue an argument never presented to the BIA, the BIA must (1) identify a claim not presented by the petitioner; (2) exercise its discretion to entertain it; and (3) decide the matter in a full opinion. (Garcia-Carbajal v. Holder, 11/5/10)
    AILA Doc. No. 10122738.
  • CA10 Adopts BIA Interpretation of “One Central Reason”(27 KB - 12/20/2010)
    The court adopted the BIA’s interpretation of “one central reason” set forth in Matter of J-B-N- and S-M-, that the protected ground cannot be incidental, tangential, superficial, or subordinate to another reason for harm. (Dallakoti v. Holder, 10/5/10)
    AILA Doc. No. 10122070.
  • CA10 Lacks Jurisdiction to Review BIA’s Credibility Determination(43 KB - 9/24/2010)
    The court found that INA §242(a)(2)(B)(ii) and INA §216(c)(4) deprive it of jurisdiction to review the BIA’s credibility determination or its weighing of the evidence found to be credible in a conditional residence waiver case. (Iliev v. Holder, 7/19/10)
    AILA Doc. No. 10092474.
  • CA10 on Federal Preemption of State Employer Sanctions and Verification Law(123 KB - 3/8/2010)
    CA10 held federal preempted state law sections imposing sanctions for employing unauthorized aliens and requiring verification of independent contractors. E-Verify requirement not preempted. (Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Edmondson, 2/2/10)
    AILA Doc. No. 10030866.
  • CA10 Finds K-2 Visa Holder Over 21 Years-Old Did Not “Age Out”(56 KB - 1/26/2010)
    CA10 held that a K-2 visa holder who timely applies for adjustment of status under INA § 245(d) must be under 21 when he or she seeks to enter the U.S., but not when the adjustment application is finally adjudicated. (Carpio v. Holder, 1/12/10)
    AILA Doc. No. 10012660.
  • CA10 Denies Petition for Review based on Precedent in Rosillo-Puga v. Holder(42 KB - 11/24/2009)
    CA10 denied petition for review finding it is bound by Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, in which it concluded that the BIA reasonably determined 8 CFR §1003.2(d) divests it of jurisdiction to entertain motions to reopen removal proceedings of deported aliens. (Mendiola v. Holder, 10/28/09)
    AILA Doc. No. 09112472.
  • CA10 Finds BIA’s Reasonable Construction of 8 U.S.C. §1231 Entitled to Deference(49 KB - 11/24/2009)
    The court upheld the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal because of N-A-M’s conviction for felony menacing, a “particularly serious crime.” The court found BIA’s reasonable construction of §1231 entitled to the court’s deference. (N-A-M v. Holder, 11/20/09)
    AILA Doc. No. 09112471.
  • CA10 Finds Post-Departure Bar Valid Exercise of AG Rulemaking Authority(102 KB - 9/15/2009)
    CA10 denied petition and held that the 8 CFR §1003.23(b)(1) post-departure bar was a valid exercise of the Attorney General's Congressionally-delegated rule-making authority. AILF filed an amicus brief in this case. (Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 9/15/09)
    AILA Doc. No. 09091590.
  • CA10 Finds it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Application for Cancellation of Removal(41 KB - 8/10/2009)
    Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Court rejects petitioner’s violation of due process claim. Notes that because cancellation of removal is a form of discretionary relief, petitioner cannot raise due process challenge. (Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 7/10/09)
    AILA Doc. No. 09081069.
  • CA10 Finds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Denial of Motion to Reopen Application for Cancellation of Removal(254 KB - 8/5/2009)
    CA10 that it cannot review a mertis determination if the BIA considers new evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen and determines the alien would still not be entitled to a finding of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. (Alzainati v. Holder, 6/17/09)
    AILA Doc. No. 09080568.
 
Copyright © 1993–2014, American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Suite 300, 1331 G Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005
Copyright & Reprint Policy
Contact Us