Home
Ethics
Process
Contact

USCIS Administrative Appeals Office

Issue/Argument:

USCIS denial of an I-212 application was erroneous as a matter of law and fact where the Service had incorrectly applied the law with respect to moral character, the passage of time, and disregarded a critical equity.

Result:

Granted.

Board of Immigration Appeals

Issue/Argument:

Appeal of denial by USCIS of adjustment of status where evidence presented by USCIS supporting the prior fraudulent marriage allegations were not probative and unreliable.

Result:

Case granted in favor of Respondent.

Immigration Court

Issue/Argument:

Motion to Terminate

1) California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon is categorically not a crime involving moral turpitude pursuant to the 9th Circuit’s holdings in Carr v. INS, 86 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 1996) and Romero v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2008). 2) The government failed to submit proper record of conviction documents – an information coupled with a “register of actions” are inadequate to prove a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(B).

Result:

Pending

Board of Immigration Appeals

Issue/Argument:

1) Pursuant to Jordison v. Keisler, 501F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2007) California Penal Code § 451(b) is categorically not a crime of violence and not an aggravated felony because the statute does not distinguish between using force against one’s own property as opposed to property of another. In Jordison the Court held that Cal. Penal Code§452(c) was not a crime of violence because the full range of conduct encompassed by the statute does not constitute a crime of moral turpitude. Similarly, because some conduct criminalized by CA Penal Code § 451(b) would not constitute an aggravated felony, such as arson of one’s own property, a conviction under the statute is categorically not a crime of violence. The offense categorically does not qualify as an aggravated felony because the full range of conduct covered by the criminal statute does not fall within the meaning of that the term aggravated felony. 2) The record of conviction was insufficient to prove the existence of a conviction because it included a RAP sheet and an information which did not reflect the actual conviction, and lacked a transcript of the plea colloquy or any other ROC document describing the details of the crime to which the Respondent pled guilty.

Result:

Granted