Articles by CLINIC
In 1990, I was born in Mexico into a staunchly Roman Catholic family. When I was twelve years old, my immediate family illegally migrated to California. We have lived there ever since.
This summer, several attorneys in the Religious Immigration Section of CLINIC had the opportunity to travel and meet with their clients. The funding for this special endeavor was provided by a grant from the Open Society Foundation. These trips provided the attorneys with the chance to meet with clients, provide information regarding religious worker immigration and the need for immigration reform, and also help to foster understanding of CLINIC’s mission.
Attorney Kate Kuznetsova
By Minyoung Ohm
RIS Staff Attorney
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has extended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for eligible nationals of Honduras and Nicaragua for an additional 18 months, beginning January 5, 2014 and ending July 6, 2016.
Current Honduran and Nicaraguan beneficiaries seeking to extend their TPS status must re-register during the 60-day re-registration period that runs from October 16, 2014, through December 15, 2014. The USCIS encourages beneficiaries to register as soon as possible.
An LPR was convicted of a Nevada statute for possession of marihuana and placed into removal proceedings. He was charged with violating INA § 237(a)(2)(B)(i), which is the ground of deportation for violating any controlled substance law. That section contains an exception, however, for a “single offense involving possession for one’s own use of thirty grams or less of marihuana.” The question before the Board was whether the IJ erred in applying the “categorical” approach set forth by the Supreme Court in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.Ct.
The BIA recently clarified that a person is ineligible for cancellation of removal if he or she is inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(B) due to convictions of two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence were five years or more. That form of relief is not available to those who were convicted of an offense under section 212(a)(2). The question before the Board was whether multiple criminal offenses were meant to be covered in the statutory preclusion. The BIA looked at the plain language and concluded that it was not ambiguous. It concluded that “convicted of an offense under s