These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
material misrepresentation
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge may consider whether a respondent misrepresented the bona fides of her prior marriage at an I-751 interview, even if USCIS has approved an I-130 filed by a subsequent spouse.
It is strange that this respondent did not seek a 212(i) waiver before the Immigration Judge, since she was married to a U.S.-citizen spouse, and had a qualifying relative for the waiver.
The full text of Matter of Mensah can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that when an applicant signs an application, it creates a strong presumption that he is aware of the contents of the application. “When an alien challenges the accuracy of the contents of a signed application, the Immigration Judge must evaluate the alien’s explanations and consider the facts of the particular case to determine whether he or she has rebutted the presumption of knowledge of the document’s contents. However, an alien may not deliberately avoid reading the application or having it explained or translated in an attempt to circumvent the presumption.
The full text of A.J. Valdez and Z. Valdez can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has clarified the standard for when a misrepresentation is material, and thus, makes a non-citizen inadmissible. The standard articulated is whether the misrepresentation tends to shut off a line of inquiry that is relevant to the non-citizen’s admissibility and that would predictably have disclosed other facts relevant to his or her eligibility for a visa, other documentation, or admission to the United States. After the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the non-citizen to establish that no proper determination of inadmissibility could have been made.
The BIA also crafted a standard for determining whether a non-citizen had assisted in the extrajudicial killings of others. The court must consider (1) the nexus between the alien’s role, acts, or inaction, and the extrajudicial killing; and (2) his scienter, meaning his prior or contemporaneous knowledge of the killing. "[W]e look at whether the alien’s role was material or integral to the killing—or, as the DHS argues, whether the alien’s role 'contributed; to the ultimate harm. We also agree with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that mere acquiescence or membership in an organization is insufficient to establish culpability." Direct proof of actual knowledge is not required. Instead, the non-citizen must have sufficient knowledge that the consequences of his actions may assist in acts of extrajudicial killing. The fact finder may look to direct or circumstantial evidence in the record to determine whether the alien had sufficient knowledge that his conduct may have assisted acts of extrajudicial killing.
The full text of Matter of D-R- can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2017/09/14/3902_0.pdf
