These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
lawful permanent residents
The Ninth Circuit has determined that DHS may parole in a lawful permanent resident (LPR) who has pending criminal charges, if a conviction under those charges would render the LPR inadmissible. In so doing, the Court deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Felix Valenzuela.
The full text of Vazquez Romero v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/28/15-72947.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a lawful permanent resident not seeking admission can still trigger the stop-time rule (which stops the accrual of continuous residence required for cancellation of removal) if he is convicted of an offense that renders him inadmissible. In so doing, the court joined the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits, while diverging from the Ninth Circuit.
The full text of Barton v. Attorney General can be found here:
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713055.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has held that the stop time rule’s reference to inadmissibility grounds are inapplicable to a lawful permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States. Thus, the petitioner’s admission to drug use did not trigger the stop time rule, because the inadmissibility ground for admission to the elements of a controlled substance offense had no application to him.
The full text of Nguyen v. Sessions can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/23/17-70251.pdf
In a short but excellent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals addressed a scenario that has plagued immigration practitioners for years. Who bears the burden of proving removability when a person has been granted lawful permanent residence and returns from a trip abroad, but the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges that they were never entitled to residency in the first place? In that case, may the DHS charge the returning resident with inadmissibility, even if he does not fit into the narrow grounds listed in section 101(a)(13)(C) of the INA? No - it cannot. A returning resident who does not fall into these narrow grounds can only be charged with deportability, not inadmissibility. This is important, because the DHS bears the burden of proving deportability, while a noncitizen bears the burden of proving admissibility.
The full text of Matter of Pena can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/478111/download
