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
By Sarah Bronstein
By Ilissa Mira
The Ombudsman’s Office met with CLINIC and other immigration advocates to discuss developments regarding DACA and reports from the field. This article provides updates on a variety of issues related to DACA eligibility and adjudication.
By Jen Riddle
“It is necessary to respond to the globalization of migration with the globalization of charity and cooperation, in such a way as to make the conditions of migrants more humane.” - Pope Francis
On October 9, 2014 the Nebraska Service Center held a teleconference on refugee/asylee issues. The following is a summary of the discussion.
Q. Can a refugee who has been to immigration court for a felony charge, but has not been removed from the U.S. because his homeland refuses to admit him, apply for authorization to work? The latest official word on his documents is “voluntary departure.”