Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship
Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg
We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
Harris v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien filed a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) that she was ineligible to adjust her status to that of lawful permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1255(a) on the basis that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
If you are facing an Immigration case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Federal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Adjust Status Extreme Hardship
Holdings:
The Federal Court made the following holding:
- Under § 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(i), a noncitizen may obtain a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility due to fraud or willful misrepresentation where the inadmissibility would result in extreme hardship to a citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent of the noncitizen. § 1182(i)(1).
- Where the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirms and supplements an immigration judge’s (IJ) order, the factual findings and reasoning contained in both decisions are subject to judicial review. A decision that an alien is not eligible for admission to the United States is conclusive unless manifestly contrary to law. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(C). The appellate court reviews the BIA’s administrative findings of fact under the substantial evidence rule and are obliged to treat them as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary, § 1252(b)(4)(B). The appellate court also defers to credibility findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Though broad, this deference is not absolute, as an IJ’s adverse credibility determination must be supported by a specific, cogent reason.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax Prince William Richmond Loudoun Virginia Beach Fredericksburg Lynchburg
We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your case in Virginia and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101
Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101
Craig v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1101 and 1158. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the alien’s appeal. The alien petitioned for review of the BIA’s order.
If you are facing an immigration case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Virginia Immigration Lawyer Refugee Persecution Fear Asylum 8 USCS 1101
Holdings:
The Virginia Court made the following holding:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Act authorizes the Attorney General to confer asylum on any refugee. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a). It defines a refugee as a person unwilling or unable to return to his native country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
- A determination regarding eligibility for asylum is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. Administrative findings of fact, including findings on credibility, are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to decide to the contrary. 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo, affording appropriate deference to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and any attendant regulations. The court will reverse the Board only if the evidence presented was so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326
United States v. Henry
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, for unlawful reentry of a deported alien under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Although a jury also convicted defendant of one count of social security fraud and one count of credit card fraud, he did not appeal these convictions.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(d) should be vacated?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that his illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(d) should be vacated as he satisfied the three requirements for a collateral attack of a prior deportation order under § 1326(d); the appellate court agreed. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not provide defendant with written notice of the deportation hearing as the statute required, therefore defendant satisfied the first two requirements for a collateral attack under § 1326(d). The U.S. argued that defendant could not meet the exhaustion requirement because he never appealed the immigration judge’s order of deportation to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs within 30 days; however, because the INS never sent defendant written notice of the deportation hearing, defendant did not appear and, thus, was never informed of his right to appeal to seek administrative and judicial review. The INS’s failure to provide notice of the hearing deprived defendant of the opportunity to contest the charges or otherwise seek relief from deportation from the administrative tribunal and, as it was possible defendant would not have been deported, defendant met the fundamental unfairness requirement. The appellate court vacated the illegal reentry conviction and remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Reopen Proceedings Refugee Asylum
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Reopen Proceedings Refugee Asylum
Franklin v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner refugee appealed from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria, which denied his habeas corpus petition seeking review of respondent immigration service’s decision to continue his pre-deportation detention, and the appeals board’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the denial of the defendant’s motion to reopen deportation proceedings was proper?
Discussion:
The refugee, who was a religious and ethnic refugee, immigrated to the United States from the Ukraine. He was convicted of conducting espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union and, after serving his sentence, was ordered deported back to the Soviet Union. The refugee appealed after the trial court denied his petition for habeas corpus review in two separate orders, which included the decision of the immigration service to continue pre-deportation detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(c), and the appeals board’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court because the immigration service did not abuse its discretion under § 1252(c) in continuing the refugee’s detention, on the ground that he posed a danger to the United States. The court also found that the appeals board correctly denied asylum and the withholding of deportation because reasonable grounds existed for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of the United States. Finally, the refugee was not entitled to designate a new country of deportation. The court affirmed the denial of the refugee’s petition for habeas corpus review of the immigration service’s deportation order.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari
Bolder v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien, a lawful permanent resident, was placed in removal proceedings after traveling abroad. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the alien’s request for relief and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the alien’s motion to reopen. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision. Certiorari was granted.
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the IIRIRA’s new admission provision, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), apply to the alien’s conviction?
Discussion:
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which was enacted in 1996, effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction like the alien’s. Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, the Supreme Court determined that the IIRIRA’s new admission provision, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), did not apply to the alien’s conviction because § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) attached a new disability (denial of reentry) in respect to past events (his pre-IIRIRA offense, plea, and conviction). The alien’s pre-IIRIRA conviction, not present travel, was the wrongful activity Congress targeted in § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The alien engaged in no criminal activity after IIRIRA’s passage. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing
Ahmad v. Alex
Facts:
After he was arrested and charged with removability for having committed an aggravated felony, petitioner permanent resident moved for a bond hearing which an immigration judge denied. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition which was granted, in part, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia remanded the matter to the immigration court with instructions to hold a bond hearing. Respondent government officials appealed.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether a deportable criminal alien who was not immediately taken into federal custody upon his release from other custody, was exempt from 8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention provision and whether he was entitled to a bond hearing?
Discussion:
The issue was whether, as the district court held, petitioner, a deportable criminal alien who was not immediately taken into federal custody upon his release from other custody, was exempt from 8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention provision and therefore was entitled to a bond hearing. The court disagreed. Although § 1226(c) was arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the interpretation of the statute by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in In re Rojas, was a permissible, and more plausible, construction. The interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference. While the court agreed that Congress’s command to the Attorney General to detain criminal aliens “when released” from other custody connoted some degree of immediacy, the court could not conclude that Congress clearly intended to exempt a criminal alien from mandatory detention and make him eligible for release on bond if the alien was not immediately taken into federal custody. Furthermore, the court deferred to the BIA without invoking the rule of lenity because the conditional requirement needed to invoke the rule of lenity–that the statutory ambiguity was grievous–did not exist in the case. The court reversed and remanded.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Continuance Waiver Denial
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Continuance Waiver Denial
Albert v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien sought review of the decision of respondent, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal of the order of the immigration judge (IJ) finding him to be deportable and denying his application for a waiver of deportation. The alien also sought review of the Board’s dismissal of his appeal of the IJ’s order denying his request for bond.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
Whether the IJ erred in denying defendant a continuance to obtain counsel before proceeding with the deportation hearing?
Discussion:
The alien, a Nigerian citizen and a lawful permanent resident, also filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion for a stay of deportation in both appeals. He was convicted of criminal offenses related to the distribution of heroin. Upon his release from prison, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings. The alien contended that the IJ erred in denying him a continuance to obtain counsel before proceeding with the deportation hearing. The court held that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying the continuance because the alien had two prior continuances and had still not obtained counsel. The alien did not show that he was denied a fair hearing or that he had been prejudiced by lack of counsel. There was no evidence that the outcome of the hearing would have been different, because the alien was convicted of an aggravated felony and incarcerated for ten years for the criminal offense; he was statutorily barred from relief under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Lastly, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of bond to the alien. The court affirmed the Board’s decision affirming the IJ’s order finding the alien deportable and ineligible for waiver relief in the first appeal. In the second appeal, the court dismissed the alien’s appeal from the Board’s decision to affirm the IJ’s order denying bond. The court denied the alien’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion for a stay of deportation both appeals.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Elizabeth v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals of respondent Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), which denied her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings to allow her to apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Issue:
- Whether the Petitioner’s motion to reopen her deportation proceedings to allow her to apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen has to be granted?
Discussion:
The alien entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor authorized to stay for six months. She worked illegally as a customer service representative for a bank. The INS initiated deportation proceedings against her because she remained in the United States longer than permitted and because she engaged in unauthorized employment. She was later convicted of embezzlement. At the deportation hearing, the Immigration Judge found that the alien was deportable as charged, and that she was ineligible for voluntary departure because of the embezzlement conviction. The INS sent her a deportation notice by certified mail, however, she failed to report for deportation. The alien married a United States citizen, and had a child. She filed a motion with the Board to reopen her deportation hearing. The Board denied the motion, reasoning that because she had failed to obey a lawful deportation order, the Board would not exercise discretion in her favor. In balancing the equities, the Board denied the alien’s motion to reopen because she ignored her deportation notices. The court held that this was a rational explanation for its denial. The court affirmed the Board’s order against the alien. The court denied the petition for review.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a
Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your
immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Inconsistent Uncorroborated Testimony Lawyer
Deportation Immigration Virginia Inconsistent Uncorroborated Testimony Lawyer
Justin v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner illegal alien, a native and citizen of El Salvador, applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1158(a). Respondent agency commenced deportation proceedings against him. The alien conceded deportability, renewed his § 1158(a) application, and applied for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1253(h)(1). The immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals each denied the applications. The alien appealed.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Inconsistent Uncorroborated Testimony Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by denying the defendant’s application for withholding deportation?
Discussion:
The alien was the only witness at a hearing before the IJ, who found the alien incredible in many respects, because his uncorroborated testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application. His application stated the alien did not know who killed his brother, but he testified that a specific group committed the crime. His application stated that he was accused of belonging to a political party, but he testified that he was a member of a political party. The board agreed with the IJ’s credibility findings. The alien contested the findings. The inconsistencies were not minor, however, since the alien’s claims for asylum and withholding of deportation hinged on the murder of his brother and the alien’s political activities. The alien also failed to satisfy the objective standard of the asylum standard because he relied only on his uncorroborated testimony, which the IJ found incredible, and El Salvador’s history of civil and political unrest. But objective evidence indicated that conditions were improving in El Salvador. Since the alien could not establish eligibility for asylum, he could not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. The court affirmed the board’s order denying asylum and withholding of deportation.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a
Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case.
A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your
immigration case and advise you about your options.
You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Asylum Review Denied Lawyer
Deportation Immigration Virginia Asylum Review Denied Lawyer
Martin v. United States
Facts:
Petitioners’ illegal aliens sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), which dismissed their appeal of a decision of an immigration judge, who found them deportable and ordered respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to deport them back to Nicaragua.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Asylum Review Denied Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Petitioner’s petition for review has to be granted?
Discussion:
The illegal aliens, a daughter and her mother, were natives and citizens of Nicaragua. They entered the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1251(a)(2) and were apprehended by border officials. They were notified that their deportation hearing would be in Los Angeles and were provided with lists of free legal services available in Tucson, Phoenix, and San Diego. The immigration judge questioned them about proceeding without counsel. The illegal aliens admitted deportability and deportation orders were issued. After the hearing, the illegal aliens obtained legal representation. They appealed the deportation order, which was denied. The court held INS regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 242.1, provided that an alien must be advised of the availability of free legal services located in the district where his deportation hearing would be held, the INS violated § 242.1(c) by providing the illegal aliens with the wrong list of legal services, the Board correctly affirmed the deportation order because the illegal aliens were unable to show prejudice by the violation of § 242.1, and the illegal aliens failed to present sufficient grounds upon which asylum could be granted. The court denied the petition for review.
The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
