DOL, July 26, 2024 "On August 7, 2024, the Department of Labor will host a public webinar to educate stakeholders, program users, and other interested members of the public on the changes to the...
Atud v. Garland (unpub.) "Mathurin A. Atud petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings based on alleged ineffective...
Shen v. Garland "Peng Shen, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge ...
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 07/25/2024 "On January 17, 2017, DHS published a final rule with new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole on a case...
Lance Curtright reports: "After the 5th Circuit’s initial decision in Membreno, [ Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland, 95 F.4th 219 ] my law partner Paul Hunker (a new AILA member!) reached out to...
Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 563 (A.G. 2022)
(1) Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I&N Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), is overruled.
(2) Immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether an individual, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii).
"On December 9, 2021, I directed the Board to refer this case for my review, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i), and invited the parties and any interested amici to submit briefs addressing whether mental health may be considered when determining whether an individual was convicted of a “particularly serious crime” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Matter of B-Z-R-, 28 I&N Dec. 424 (A.G. 2021). Both respondent and the Department of Homeland Security now agree that G-G-S- is erroneous and should be overruled. Respondent’s Opening Br. at 5–11 (Jan. 31, 2022); U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security’s Opening Br. at 6–13 (Jan. 31, 2022). I have determined that it is appropriate to overrule the Board’s decision in G-G-S-. ... Going forward, immigration adjudicators may consider a respondent’s mental health in determining whether a respondent, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii); see id. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). The Board’s decision in respondent’s matter is vacated and the case is remanded to the immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
[Here is the underlying panel decision dated Dec. 3, 2020.]