BIA on Matter of A-R-C-G- et al., Respondents
The Board of Immigration Appeals announced a major decision in the case of a Guatemalan woman whose asylum application based on domestic violence was previously denied. In October 2009, an immigration judge ruled that the lead respondent – a woman whose numerous domestic violence complaints went ignored by Guatemalan law enforcement – did not adequately demonstrate persecution on account of a particular social group. Her application for asylum was denied and she was ordered removed. During the appeal five years later, DHS conceded that the group consisting of “married woman in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” is cognizable and socially distinct within the society in question. The court record was remanded for the Immigration Judge to reevaluate the respondent’s eligibility for asylum based on that decision.
The official headnote of interim decision #3811 is as follows:
Depending on the facts and evidence in an individual case, “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” can constitute a cognizable particular social group that forms the basis of a claim for asylum or withholding of removal under sections 208(a) and 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1231(b)(3) (2012)
http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3811.pdf
*
Duran Gonzalez vs. DHS Reaches Settlement
After eight years of litigation, the federal district court approved a settlement agreement for Duran Gonzalez vs. DHS. The case focused on eligibility for adjustment of status under INA § 245(i) with I-212 waiver for persons who, after being removed from the country, entered the country without admission. In accordance with the settlement, qualifying individuals may apply for lawful permanent resident status in the United States. Individuals in the Ninth Circuit with retroactivity claims who submitted both an adjustment of status application and an I-212 waiver on or after August 13, 2004 and on or before November 30, 2007 are covered by the settlement agreement.
*
Coyomani v. Holder: CA7 Applies Chevron Deference to BIA’s Interpretation of INA §240A(b)(1)(C)
From aila.org: The court agreed with the BIA that an alien convicted of an offense under INA §237(a)(2) is ineligible for cancellation under INA §240A(b)(1)(C), regardless of whether he is charged with removal under §212 as an inadmissible alien or §237 as a deportable alien. (Coyomani v. Holder, 7/14/14)
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49607
*
Wang v. Holder: CA7 Applies Chevron Deference to BIA’s Decision in Matter of Camarillo
From aila.org: The court applied Chevron deference and upheld the BIA’s decision in Camarillo that a notice that does not specify a particular time and date for an initial hearing suffices for purposes of the stop-time rule under INA §240A(d)(1). (Wang v. Holder, 7/16/14)
http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=49608