In a precedential opinion, the Fourth Circuit faulted an Immigration Judge for “[p]redicating an adverse credibility determination on unrelated facts derived from another case is manifestly contrary to law and constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals faulted an Immigration Judge for suggesting “that any asylum applicant who has been persecuted (other than on the basis of an immutable characteristic) should simply abandon the opinion or association giving rise to the persecution….” The Court found this to be “a suggestion plainly at odds with the objectives of United States asylum law.”
After a petition for habeas corpus was denied by the Newark District Court, the Third Circuit granted our appeal, finding that Mr. Yassir “comes before [the Court] with his identity established, a number of contacts in the community, and a proposed residence and address in the area. And, as discussed above, it surely does not appear reasonably foreseeable that removal is likely, at least any time soon.”
In a precedential case, the Third Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA, where the BIA declined to “reissue” a prior decision. The Court found that immigrants have a right to have decisions of the BIA properly served, and the BIA should consider evidence of improper service when deciding whether to reissue its decision so a proper appeal can be taken.
Ruling in favor of a victim of persecution on account of his Catholic religious practices, the Second Circuit held that “[b]ecause the BIA did not consider [applicant]‘s testimony that he had been beaten, its decision is fatally flawed …. “
In precedential case that has had long-lasting implications, the Newark District Court rejected the government’s argument that a person cannot be naturalized when DHS begins removal proceedings after a person files a naturalization application.
Reversing the Immigration Judge, the Second Circuit held that “when a petitioner challenges the accuracy of the contents of his I-589 application that was signed under penalty of perjury, the IJ must evaluate the petitioner’s explanations and determine whether the presumption of 8 C.F.R. § 208.3(c)(2) has been rebutted.” The Court also held that it “must not accept an IJ’s clear misinterpretation of testimony,” and that an IJ “has an affirmative obligation to develop the record.”
In a post REAL ID Act case, we successfully argued on behalf of a Sri Lankan client to the Board of Immigration Appeals that an Immigration Judge’s negative credibility determination, predicated almost exclusively on our client’s “demeanor” was flawed, and that remand was required. The Board found that it was “unable to discern how the behavior identified by the Immigration Judge should be grounds for an adverse credibility determination.”
*DISCLAIMER: The decisions made available here are provided solely for reference and research purposes. Previous successes are no way indiciative of future results, even on factually or legally identical matters. Bardavid Law, and Joshua E. Bardavid make no assurances, guarantees or other representations about the outcome of any future matters. The cases made available are not exhaustive of cases handled by our office.