These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
terrorism
The Second Circuit remanded an APA case for the agency to consider whether bearing arms on behalf of the Taliban under duress constitutes an “unlawful act” under U.S. law, such that the person is inadmissible on terrorism grounds.
The full text of Kakar v. USCIS can be found here:
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
The Third Circuit has concluded that a group cannot be designated as a Tier III terrorism group unless party leaders authorized the terrorist activity committed by its members. "Still, the rule we announce today does not always require that the Government produce conclusive proof that the leader(s) of a group explicitly sign off on each individual terrorist act at issue. Instead, as the Board itself has opined in several cases, evidence of authorization may be direct or circumstantial, and authorization may be reasonably inferred from, among other things, the fact that most of an organization’s members commit terrorist activity or from a failure of a group’s leadership to condemn or curtail its members’ terrorist acts."
The full text of Uddin v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that review of a section 13 adjustment of status application - available to certain foreign officials performing diplomatic and semi-diplomatic duties - is exclusively with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As such, the denial of such an application is reviewable only by the Administrative Appeals Office, and not the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court also determined that providing interpretation services to the leader of a terrorist organization constitutes the provision of material support to that organization.
The full text of Jabateh v. Lynch can be found here:
Addressing the terrorist inadmissibility provision related to the use of firearms with intent to endanger another person, the court examined the actions of a person who planned a coup in the Philippines. The Immigration Judge determined that the respondent did not have the requisite intent to endanger. The Board of Immigration Appeals reversed The Ninth Circuit assumed that the determination of intent would be a factual question, and thus, that the Board of Immigration Appeals was required to apply the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing the Immigration Judge's determination. The court remanded to allow the Board of Immigrations to apply the proper standard.
The full text of Zumel v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/29/12-70724.pdf
