These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
NACARA
The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals can use its sua sponte authority to reopen for a non-citizen to pursue NACARA relief, rejecting the argument that a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1) is the only available means for reopening for NACARA relief.
The full text of Mancia v. Garland can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an applicant subject to the heightened standard for NACARA must establish ten years of continuous physical presence following the applicant's most recently incurred ground of removal. In so holding, the Court deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Castro-Lopez. Campos-Hernandez was convicted of drug-related offenses in California in 2003, 2005, and 2008. Because ten years had not passed since the 2008 offense when the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his case, he could not meet the continuous physical presence requirement.
The full text of Campos-Hernandez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/05/02/14-70034.pdf
One of the statutory requirements for NACARA cancellation of removal is that a person not have been apprehended at the time of entry on after December 19, 1990. An entry requires (1) a crossing into the territorial limits of the United States; (2) inspection and admission by an immigration officer or actual and intentional evasion of inspection; and (3) freedom from official restraint. There are at least two ways in which the government might restrain an individual: (1) it could stop the individual physically at the border or (2) it could monitor the individual as he crosses the border by conducting surveillance of him. However, when the government is alleging the latter situation, the burden is on the government to produce evidence of such surveillance.
The full text of Lopez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/17a0063p-06.pdf
The Ninth Circuit held that it does not have jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of NACARA special rule cancellation of removal on discretionary grounds. The Court retains jurisdiction to review questions of law and constitutional claims in such cases.
The full text of Monroy v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/11/14-73933.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals had determined that when an applicant for NACARA commits more than one act that renders them removable, the continuous physical presence requirement must be applied to the last removable act. Thus, when an applicant enters the United States without inspection and subsequently commits a crime that renders him removable, he must establish the requisite physical presence beginning on the date that the criminal act rendered him removable. In the instant case, the applicant committed a removable crime in 2012 which subjected him to the heightened standard for NACARA. Because ten years had not elapsed since the offense, he could not establish the requisite physical presence.
The full text of Matter of Castro-Lopez can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2015/12/02/3854.pdf
