Postdating checks california law impulse dating london
Â§Â§ 1255(c)(2) (2000), an alien who has failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since entry into the United States, other than through no fault of his own or for technical reasons, is ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act. Â§Â§ 1245.1(d)(2)(ii) (2004), where the alien filed an asylum application while in lawful nonimmigrant status, the nonimmigrant status subsequently expired, and the asylum application was referred to the Immigration Court prior to the time the alien applied for adjustment of status. 862 (BIA 2016) (1) An applicant for adjustment of status under section 209 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. (2) Cubans who were paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of the Act, 8 U. (2) When evaluating an asylum claim, the changed conditions of the country at issue, as properly established in the record of proceedings, may be a significant factor in concluding that an applicant has not established a well-founded fear of persecution. 1157 (BIA 1998) (1) The reasonableness of an alien’s fear of persecution is reduced when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long period of time after his departure. (2) An asylum applicant who no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution due to changed country conditions may still be eligible for a discretionary grant of asylum under 8 C. (3) The applicant failed to establish compelling reasons arising out of the severity of the past persecution for being unwilling to return to Afghanistan where he suffered beatings during a month-long detention and the disappearance and likely death of his father. 1157 (BIA 1998) (1) The reasonableness of an alien’s fear of persecution is reduced when his family remains in his native country unharmed for a long period of time after his departure. (2) The respondents, natives of North Korea who became citizens of South Korea, are precluded from establishing eligibility for asylum as to North Korea on the basis of their firm resettlement in South Korea. 486 (BIA 2011) (1) Pursuant to section 208(b)(2)(A)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. § 1159 (2012), must be either a refugee or an asylee. § 1182(d)(5) (1976), between April 1, 1980, and May 18, 1980, are considered to have been admitted as refugees pursuant to the Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. (2) It is improper to deem an application for relief abandoned based on the applicant’s failure to comply with the biometrics filing requirement where the record does not reflect that the applicant received notification advisories concerning that requirement, was given a deadline for submitting the biometrics, and was advised of the consequences of his or her failure to comply. 860 (BIA 1997) (1) A finding of credible testimony by an asylum applicant is not dispositive as to whether asylum should be granted; rather, the specific content of the testimony, and any other relevant evidence in the record, is also considered. Â§ 208.13(b)(1)(i) (1998), where an asylum applicant has shown that he has been persecuted in the past on account of a statutorily-protected ground, and the record reflects that country conditions have changed to such an extent that the asylum applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution from his original persecutors, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that he has a well-founded fear of persecution from any new source. Â§208.13(b)(1)(ii) only if he establishes, as a threshold matter, compelling reasons for being unwilling to return to his country of nationality or last habitual residence arising out of the severity of the past persecution. 1287, which provides that North Koreans cannot be barred from eligibility for asylum on account of any legal right to citizenship they may enjoy under the Constitution of South Korea, does not apply to North Koreans who have availed themselves of the right to citizenship in South Korea. (4) Evidence that permanent resident status is available to an alien under the law of the country of proposed resettlement may be sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of an offer of firm resettlement, and a determination of firm resettlement is not contingent on whether the alien applies for that status. 38 (BIA 2001) A carrier is subject to fine under section 231(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. It is merely an administrative convenience which allows the removal of cases from the calendar in appropriate situations. (3) An ABC alien's right to apply for relief from deportation is not prohibited due to the administrative closure of his or her case. Â§ 1003.1(d)(3) (2008), the Board of Immigration Appeals should defer to the factual findings of an Immigration Judge, unless they are clearly erroneous, but it retains independent judgment and discretion, subject to applicable governing standards, regarding pure questions of law and the application of a particular standard of law to those facts. (2) Although the Board may certify a case to itself under 8 C. (2) Where an alien files a motion to remand during the pendency of an appeal from an Immigration Judge’s denial of a motion to reopen a final administrative decision and more than 90 days have passed since entry of that final administrative decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion because it is time-barred by 8 C. (3) The weaker an applicant’s testimony, the greater the need for corrobativeevidence. 1180 (BIA 1998) (Identity) An alien who did not provide any evidence to corroborate his purported identity, nationality, claim of persecution, or his former presence or his family’s current presence at a refugee camp, where it was reasonable to expect such evidence, failed to meet his burden of proof to establish his asylum claim. 42 (BIA 2006) (1) The provisions regarding credibility determinations enacted in section 101(a)(3) of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Div.
(2) For an applicant to be able to internally relocate safely, there must be an area of the country where the circumstances are substantially better than those giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of the original claim. Â§ 1208.13(b)(3) (2012) in light of the applicable burden of proof to determine whether it would be reasonable under all the circumstances to expect the applicant to relocate. 66 (BIA 1995) Under the circumstances of this case, where an asylum applicant’s testimony was plausible, detailed, internally consistent, consistent with the asylum application, and unembellished during the applicant’s repeated relating of events in a probing cross-examination, the Board declines to adopt the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding. 121 (BIA 1995) (1) In order to fully and fairly review a decision of an Asylum Office Director in asylum proceedings, the Board of Immigration Appeals must have before it the primary evidentiary matters relied upon by the initial adjudicator. Â§3.38(b) (2002) for filing an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals is mandatory and jurisdictional, and it begins to run upon the issuance of a final disposition in the case. Â§3.1(c) (2002) to certify cases to itself in its discretion is limited to exceptional circumstances, and is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing them might result in hardship. Â§1159(c) (2000), any humanitarian, family unity preservation, or public interest considerations must be balanced against the seriousness of the criminal offense that rendered the alien inadmissible. A motion to reinstate an appeal is required before issues which have been administratively closed can be considered by the Board. 462 (BIA 2002) Under new regulations that become effective on September 25, 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals has limited fact-finding ability on appeal, which heightens the need for Immigration Judges to include in their decisions clear and complete findings of fact that are supported by the record and are in compliance with controlling law. 399 (BIA 1999), and Matter of Becerra-Miranda, 12 I&N Dec. (5) Any appeal pending before the Board regarding issues or forms of relief from deportation which have been administratively closed by the Board prior to the reopening of the alien's proceedings will remain administratively closed. (3) The respondent, who was paroled into the United States on August 25, 1980, with an Arrival/Departure Record (Form I-94) that was stamped "Cuban/Haitian Entrant (Status Pending)" and indicates that the purpose of his parole was for "Cuban Asylum," is ineligible to adjust his status under section 209 of the Act because he was neither admitted as a refugee nor granted asylum. 888 (BIA 2012) (1) In order to meaningfully effectuate the statutory and regulatory privilege of legal representation where it has not been expressly waived by a respondent, an Immigration Judge must grant a reasonable and realistic period of time to provide a fair opportunity for the respondent to seek, speak with, and retain counsel. Â§ 1208.15 (2011), the framework for making firm resettlement determinations focuses exclusively on the existence of an offer of permanent resettlement and allows for the consideration of direct and indirect evidence. Â§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi) (2006), even if the permit was fraudulently obtained. (3) The Immigration Judge must provide cogent and convincing reasons for determining that a preponderance of the evidence supports a frivolousness finding, taking into account any explanations by the applicant for discrepancies or implausibleaspects of the claim. 236 (BIA 2010) (1) In making a frivolousness determination, an Immigration Judge may incorporate by reference any factual findings made in support of an adverse credibility finding, so long as the Immigration Judge makes explicit findings that the incredible aspects of the asylum application were material and were deliberately fabricated. (3) When the required frivolousness warnings have been given to an asylum applicant prior to the merits hearing, the Immigration Judge is not required to afford additional warnings or to seek further explanation in regard to inconsistencies that have become obvious during the course of the hearing. (2) Before the Immigration Judge makes a finding that an asylum application is frivolous, the applicant must be given sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of the claim. (2) In considering an asylum applicant’s explanations for inconsistencies or discrepancies, an Immigration Judge making a frivolousness determination must separately address the applicant’s explanations in the context of how they may have a bearing on the materiality and deliberateness requirements unique to that determination.