Skip to main content
Alexander Joseph Segal
Avvo
Pro

Alexander Segal’s Legal Cases

5 total

  • Litvinova v. Mukasey, (2nd Cir. 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Outcome:
    Reversal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals of the USDOJ's denial of asylum. Case remanded for a new hearing
    Description:
    Reversal of the BIA decision in part where the Board agreed with the IJ's finding that the mistreatment the petitioner complained about did not constitute persecution. Sustaining the BIA decision in part where the Board reversed the original negative creditability finding by an Immigration Judge on the grounds that it did not rely on a specific and cogent reason needed to sustain negative credibility determination.
  • Maximov v. Gonzales, (2nd Cir 2003)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jun 15, 2013
    Outcome:
    Remanded to the BIA and eventually to the Immigration Judge. Full reversal of the original DHS's position.
    Description:
    The case revisited Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) and the extended definition of a child, it presented. The case addressed the contention by the DHS that an individual who was originally included in the parents asylum application as a child as thus qualified for an extended definition of a child under the CSPA, lost such protection once he was married and did not regain it once he was divorced. The DHS contended that the protection could not be regained after the divorce even if both the marriage and the divorce happened prior to the individual parents' being granted asylum. American Immigration Law Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case. See ALIF's annual report for 2005, page 9. http://www.ailf.org/about/annual_report2005.pdf
  • Gritsenko v. Ashcroft (2nd Cir 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Jan 04, 2007
    Outcome:
    BIA decision vacated on Stipulation. Remanded back to the IJ for a new hearing.
    Description:
    The case addressed the issue of "on account of" in the context of an application for asylum. The issue was whether the original analysis by the IJ complied with that spelled out by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the holding of Yeuging Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F. 3d 540 (2nd Cir 2005) in making a determination whether the harm of which the applicant for asylum complained, had been on account of one of the protected grounds under the Immigration and Nationality Act (The INA).
  • Elbahja v. Keisler, 06-2671.(2nd Cir 2010). Precedent Decision

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Outcome:
    Petition for Review dismissed
    Description:
    Represented the Petitioner only before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Petitioner appealed to the Court the BIA affirmance without opinion of the denial by an immigration judge of his request to continue removal proceedings. Petitioner needed more time to allow the US Department of Labor to adjudicate his previously filed labor certification application. The Court held that it did not constitute an abuse of discretion for an IJ to decline to grant multiple continuances in order to permit adjudication of a removable alien's pending labor certification. The Court was particularly swayed by the fact that the IJ had previously granted the petitioner many continuances in the past as well as the need to move the case along. The court found no merits in the Petitioner’s argument that, he, the petitioner, did not control the Labor Department’s adjudication process and timeline and could not predict when the petition would be adjudicated. The Court held that labor certification was just a beginning in a long process of legalization so that the Court could not find fault with the IJ who refused to give the Petitioner more time. It is interesting that in a similar case some time later in 2010, the Second Circuit reversed its course and remanded the case when the IJ denied continuance.
  • In Re M-L- (BIA 2008)

    Practice Area:
    Immigration
    Date:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Outcome:
    Remanded to the IJ where the CAT relief was granted.
    Description:
    Respondent, national of Pakistan, with serious criminal record, petitioned immigration court for relief under the UN Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied, finding that the indirect involvement of the corrupt Pakistani police officer was not sufficient to justify granting the CAT relief where the statute, in the IJ's opinion, required more direct participation of the government. BIA reversed, holding that the IJ applied incorrect legal standard in light of the then recent decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Khouzam v. Ashcroft 361 F. 3d 171 (2nd Cir 2004), wherein the Court held that CAT relief did not require "consent and approval" by the government of the country in question in order to constitute "instigation" required by the Convention. Citing the Court's holding in Khouzam, the Board held that to constitute instigation, government officials acting in official capacity need only "know of or remain willfully blind to an act and thereafter breach their legal responsibility to prevent it."