These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
issue preclusion
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the agency’s denial of an asylee adjustment of status application, finding that the issue of whether the petitioner provided material support to terrorism was not actually litigated during his asylum proceeding in the Immigration Court. Thus, the government was not issue precluded from denying the adjustment on terrorism grounds.
The full text of Fofana v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of N-A-I and determined that an asylee who adjusts status to lawful permanent residence voluntarily relinquishes his asylee status. In addition, an individual granted asylum pre-REAL ID Act cannot invoke issue preclusion to prevent the agency from finding him ineligible for asylum post-REAL ID Act.
The full text of Ali v. Barr can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60604-CV0.pdf
The petitioner had been granted asylum by an Immigration Judge, and subsequently applied for adjustment of status before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. His adjustment application was denied on the ground that he had provided material support to a terrorist organization. The petitioner appealed that decision to federal court, arguing that the material support bar also applies to asylum cases, and as such, the grant of asylum meant that the Immigration Judge must have previously determined that he had not provided material support to a terrorist organization. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that the question of whether the petitioner was inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds was never raised, contested, or submitted for determination at his asylum proceeding, and thus, the doctrine of issue preclusion did not apply. Notably, the Tier III terrorism ground did not exist at the time of the asylum hearing.
The full text of Janjua v. Neufeld can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/08/09/17-16558.pdf
