BIA Construes I-130 Requirements for Adoptees from Hague Countries

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a petitioner seeking approval of a Form I-130 for an adopted child from a country that is a party to the Hague Convention must submit (1) a written statement from the Central Authority of the child’s country of origin stating that it is aware of the child’s presence in the United States and of the adoption, and that it has determined that the child is not habitually resident in the country of origin; (2) an adoption order or amended adoption order incorporating the language of the statement from the Central Authority; or (3) proof that the Central Authority of the child’s country of origin did not respond to the request for a habitual residence statement, that the Central Authority responded that it would not write a habitual residence statement, or that the United States Department of State has confirmed that the Central Authority does not issue habitual residence statements.

The full text of Matter of Furtado can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1352416/dl?inline

Eleventh Circuit Finds no Jurisdiction to Review Revocation of I-130

The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s revocation of an approved Form I-130.

The full text of Bouarfa v. Secretary of DHS can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202212429.pdf

Fourth Circuit Addresses Jurisdiction over a Denied I-130; Declines to Transfer Case to District Court

Ashton Leblanc, a U.S. citizen, employed an attorney to help him secure citizenship for his son, who was born outside of the United States.  The attorney filed a family-based immigration petition (known as an I-130) on behalf of Ashton's son, Robert.  The I-130 was eventually denied for failure to submit the necessary documents and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial.  All along, the attorney assured Ashton that all was proceeding as planned.  Ashton eventually spoke to a second attorney, who called the first attorney to inquire about the status of the case.  Because the second attorney was satisfied that the first attorney had everything well in hand (clearly not the case given that the case had been denied), he reassured Ashton.  Finally, Ashton hired a third attorney who discovered the first attorney's blunder, and moved to reopen the petition at the Board of Immigration Appeals.  This motion was denied, and subsequently appealed to the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit determined that it had no jurisdiction over a denied visa petition.  Ordinarily, such a denial should be transferred to a District Court for review.  However, the Fourth Circuit declined to do so, finding that the interests of justice would not be served, as Ashton's goal was to establish Robert's citizenship, and the approval of the I-130 would be of no benefit to that process.

The full text of Leblanc v. Holder can be found here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/132474.P.pdf