Can an individual who has overstayed his original visa in the USA or otherwise been present illegally in the USA for many years, travel abroad and return to pursue adjustment of status application, which had been pending with USCIS on the day of the travel?
There are different appellate processes that immigrants must go through. These processes depend on the nature of the immigrant’s petition or application, whether the person has a valid immigration status, and whether that immigrant is detained in an immigration detention facility.
Way too often, I run into a client who asks whether a Legal Permanent Resident is allowed to file for bankruptcy and more importantly, whether doing so would carry negative consequences for their potential bid for the US Citizenship through Naturalization process. This ques
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) provides for investigation and prosecution of violent domestic crimes against women.
In the Matter of Leal, 26 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recently considered “whether ‘recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death’ [ ] is a crime involving moral turpitude
An alien who may otherwise be eligible for asylum or withholding of removal may be barred from obtaining asylum and withholding of removal when “there are serious reasons for believing that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime”,
Once the asylum applicant has established he or she suffered past persecution, the burden of proof shifts to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to rebut this presumption.
INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Fraud or Misrepresentation
There are circumstances when the applicant is not interested in pursuing immigration purposes and needs to visit the United States for business related purposes; to attend a conference or meetings or attend to a family matter. The Congress contemplated such scenarios as well.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) recently held the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) “did not err when it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider [an alien’s] motion to reopen sua sponte”,