Set Text Size:

S

S

S

2004 - 2003

  • CA10 Says Individuals Who Reenter Unlawfully After Prior Removal Ineligible for I-212 Waivers from Within US (12/14/2004)
    Tenth Circuit reasoned that these individuals are subject to inadmissibility under the so-called permanent bar of INA § 212(a)(9)(C), which may be waived only after the person has been outside the U.S. for ten years. (Berum-Garcia v. Comfort, 11/23/04). AILA Doc. No. 04121443.
    AILA Doc. No. 04121443.
  • CA10 Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Whether BIA Improperly Applied AWO Regulation (11/8/2004)
    The court held that neither the INA nor the Administrative Procedure Act authorized its review of the BIA's decision to affirm petitioner’s appeal without opinion. (Tsegay v. Ashcroft, 10/26/04).
    AILA Doc. No. 04110871.
  • CA10 Rejects IJ’s Adverse Firm Resettlement and Credibility Determinations (9/13/2004)
    The court found that the right to apply for asylum in Canada did not constitute an offer of permanent resettlement. The court also held that the IJ failed to support his adverse credibility finding with specific, cogent reasons. (Elzour v. Ashcroft, 8/17/04). AILA Doc. No. 04091372.
    AILA Doc. No. 04091372.
  • CA10 Holds that INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii) Bars Review of IJ’s Decision Denying Continuance (9/13/2004)
    Although an IJ’s discretionary authority over continuance motions is specified in the regulations and not in the statute, the court concluded that it stemmed from the IJ’s statutory authority to conduct removal proceedings and thus it was “specified under” the INA for purposes of barring review. (Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 8/20/04). AILA Doc. No. 04091360.
    AILA Doc. No. 04091360.
  • CA10 Articulates Standard and Documentation Requirements for Stay of Removal Pending Judicial Review (8/13/2004)
    The Tenth Circuit stated that requests to stay removal pending judicial review must be presented in a separate motion and establish both that the court has jurisdiction over the appeal and that a stay is warranted under the appropriate standard. The court also listed documentation which should be attached to the motion. (Lim v. Ashcroft, 7/9/04 & Singh v. Ashcroft, 7/7/2004).
    AILA Doc. No. 04081371.
  • CA10 Criticizes IJ for Failing to Explain Findings; Applying Erroneous Standard to Asylum Claim (4/30/2004)
    The Tenth Circuit reversed the asylum denial of an Indonesian ethnic Chinese, finding that the IJ erred in not providing a reason for concluding that petitioner's testimony alone was not sufficient to prove ethnicity, and in requiring that the original reason for coming to the U.S. have been to flee persecution. (Wiransane v. Ashcroft, 4/27/04). AILA Doc. No. 04043069.
    AILA Doc. No. 04043069.
  • CA10 Dismisses Petition for Failure to Establish a Substantial Constitutional Issue (3/16/2004)
    The Tenth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review denials of cancellation of removal applications, notwithstanding INA section 242(a)(2)(B), only where a substantial constitutional issue exists in the denial. The Court found that the petitioners' claim did not raise a substantial constitutional issue. (Alvarez-Delmuro v. Ashcroft, 3/9/04). AILA Doc. No. 04031613.
    AILA Doc. No. 04031613.
  • CA10 Upholds BIA Denials and Constitutionality of the AWO Procedure (2/20/2004)
    The Court found that the petitioner didn’t prove an adequate basis for failing to timely file, rejected the petitioner's constitutional challenges to the AWO procedure, and denied the request for nunc pro tunc voluntary departure because the Circuit Court appeal was filed after the expiration of the voluntary departure period. (Sviridov v. Ashcroft, 02/10/04). AILA Doc. No. 04022010.
    AILA Doc. No. 04022010.
  • CA10 Upholds BIA's AWO Procedure (2/6/2004)
    Substantially adopting the First Circuit's position, the Tenth Circuit Court found that the BIA's Affirmance without Opinion (AWO) procedure does not violate principles of administrative law or due process. The Tenth Circuit also reviewed the IJ's decision and affirmed the denials of petitioners' applications. (Yuk v. Ashcroft, 01/10/04). AILA Doc. No. 04020617.
    AILA Doc. No. 04020617.
  • CA10 Finds it Has Jurisdiction to Review BIA AWO Determinations (2/2/2004)
    The Court rejected the government's arguments that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determinations to issue AWO decisions, but found that the petitioner's case contained no error. (Batalova v. Ashcroft, 01/23/04). AILA Doc. No. 04020210.
    AILA Doc. No. 04020210.
  • CA10 Remands Case for Preliminary Injunction to Halt Termination of Medicaid Benefits for LPRs (1/28/2004)
    The Tenth Circuit found that Colorado state's procedures violate the Medicaid Act by denying some members of the class a right to a hearing to contest termination of benefits, remanding the case for entry of a preliminary injunction. (Soskin v. Reinertson, 01/12/04). AILA Doc. No. 04012813.
    AILA Doc. No. 04012813.
  • En Banc CA10 Finds No Constitutional Right to be Informed of 212(c) Relief (1/23/2004)
    The 10th Circuit reversed its affirmance of a District Court's dismissal of removal proceedings, holding that the defendant did not have a right to be informed of available discretionary relief, and that there was no prejudice as the defendant had not shown a reasonable likelihood that he would have been granted relief. (United States v. Aguirre-Tello, 01/06/04). AILA Doc. No. 04012311.
    AILA Doc. No. 04012311.
  • CA10 Holds Failure to Appear Not Excusable (1/5/2004)
    The Tenth Circuit held that the pendency of a motion to change venue was not an "exceptional circumstance" excusing a failure to appear at an immigration hearing. (Tang v. Ashcroft) (12/29/03). AILA Doc. No. 04010519.
    AILA Doc. No. 04010519.
  • CA10 Rejects Jurisdiction over Hardship Determination (12/24/2003)
    The Tenth Circuit held that the hardship determination in a cancellation of removal case was a discretionary decision, and thus barred from review in the courts of appeal under INA section 242(a)(2)(B). (Ventura v. Ashcroft, 11/13/03). AILA Doc. No. 03122412.
    AILA Doc. No. 03122412.
  • CA10 Finds DWI Involving No Injury to Others Not an Aggravated Felony (11/21/2003)
    The Tenth Circuit distinguished the context in which Tapia Garcia v. INS arose in finding that a driving while intoxicated conviction that involved no injury to others did not constitute a crime of violence, and thus not an aggravated felony. (USA v. Lucia-Lucio, 8/28/03). AILA Doc. No. 03112123.
    AILA Doc. No. 03112123.