These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
VAWA
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that a non-citizen had not established extraordinary circumstances that would justify tolling the one-year filing deadline for a motion to reopen based on eligibility for VAWA-related relief.
The full text of Magana Magana v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/12/26/23-1887.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to waive the filing deadline for a VAWA-based motion to reopen.
The full text of Yasin v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the beneficiary of an approved VAWA self-petition is not admitted for the purposes of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents.
The full text of Enriquez v. Barr can be found:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/08/13/13-72934.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the exception to removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the INA (present without admission or parole) applies only to a VAWA self petitioner. It does not apply to a respondent who has been subjected to extreme cruelty, but who has not applied for benefits as a VAWA self petitioner. The instant case involved a respondent who fled domestic violence in Guatemala at the hands of family members.
The full text of Matter of Pangan-Sis can be found here:
An Immigration Judge denied Sonia Tillery's application for VAWA cancellation of removal, suggesting that she had not proven that her marriage to her abusive US citizen was bona fide. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit reversed, noting that the VAWA cancellation statute (unlike the VAWA self-petition statute) does not specifically require proof of a good faith marriage. While the statute does not permit an applicant to be inadmissible under the statutory provision related to marriage fraud, the Court noted that there was not an explicit finding of marriage fraud, and as such, remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
The full text of Tillery v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1193P-01A.pdf
An Immigration Judge ordered Judith Mutle Mutie-Timothy removed for having engaged in a fraudulent marriage to a U.S. citizen for the purpose of acquiring lawful permanent residence. Subsequently, USCIS approved her VAWA self-petition, finding that her marriage was, in fact, bona fide. On remand, the Immigration Judge essentially ignored this finding, denying Mutie-Timothy's applications for adjustment of status and a waiver on discretion, disagreeing with USCIS's finding that her marriage was bona fide.
On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision, noting that USCIS only adjudicated the validity of Mutie-Timothy's marriage based on documentary evidence, while the Immigration Judge also had the benefit of hearing her testimony and observing her demeanor.
Because the applications were denied on discretionary grounds, the Eighth Circuit held that it had no jurisdiction to review the denials. It also found no due process violations were committed by the agency.
The full text of Mutie-Timothy v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143671P.pdf
Joel Magnuriu applied for adjustment of status during immigration proceedings based on an approved I-360 petition classifying him as the abused spouse of a US citizen. The Immigration Judge denied his application on discretionary grounds. While on appeal, USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke Manguriu's I-360, and because he did not respond to the notice, USCIS revoked the I-360. When the case reached the First Circuit, the Government argued that the case was moot, since even with a remand, Manguriu had not relief available to him after the I-360 petition was revoked. Manguriu argued the revocation was invalid because USCIS sent the notice of intent to revoke to the wrong address. The notice was not in the administrative record, and the First Circuit determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals needed to supplement its findings on the issue of the revocation of the I-360 before it could decide whether a remand was warranted or would be fruitless.
The full text of Manguriu v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1279P-01A.pdf
