BOILA is proud to announce that Ms.T, a native and citizen of Egypt, was granted approval of her asylum application by the Arlington Asylum Office based on religious persecution she and her family suffered in Egypt. BOILA was successful in obtaining asylum for Ms. T and her entire family, including her husband and two children.

Ms. D, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of her petition under the Violence Against Women Act.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. D was the victim of physical and emotional abuse by her US citizen spouse.  BOILA looks forward to assisting Ms. D in obtaining her green card.

Ms. I, a native and citizen of Nigeria, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative which was filed by her US citizen husband.

 Ms. N, a native and citizen of Ghana, was granted approval of her I-601 waiver of inadmissibility application along with her application for adjustment of status to become a permanent resident.  BOILA was successful in showing that if Mr. N's waiver application, which was required because she entered the US using another person's passport, was not approved her US citizen spouse and son would suffer extreme hardship.  USCIS previously denied Ms. N's waiver of inadmissibility application that was prepared by her previous counsel.

 Ms. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on approval of her I-360 abused spouse petition.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. K was the victim of physical and emotional abuse by her US citizen spouse.

 Mr. C, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application based on approval of his I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by his US citizen wife.  Mr. C was previously in removal proceedings before the Baltimore Immigration Court since 2010 and through BOILA's efforts, the proceedings were terminated enabling Mr. C to obtain his green card.

Ms. J, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on approval of her I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen husband.  Ms. J's case was particularly complicated since she had a final order of deportation, which was entered by the Immigration Court over 10 years ago.  Through BOILA's efforts, Ms. J's case was reopened by the Board of Immigration Appeals and dismissed allowing her to obtain her green card.

 Ms. W, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her asylum application by the Arlington Asylum Office based on persecution she suffered as a result of the polygamous and abusive marriage she was forced into at a very young age in her native country.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. W needed protection in the US based on her membership in a particular social group comprised of young women in Cameroon who are forced into early marriage.

Mr. B, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his adjustment of status application and has obtained his green card.  BOILA was successful in showing that Mr. B had derivative asylee status through his mother who was previously granted asylum and therefore, was eligible for permanent residency.

Mr. R, a child who is a native and citizen of El Salvador, was granted approvalof his special immigrant juvenile status.  BOILA was successful inassisting Mr. R in acquiring legal status so that he may remain in the US with his mother.  

 Mr. A, a native and citizen of Saudi Arabia, was granted approval of the I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen husband.    

Mr. D, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, was granted approval of the Petition for Alien Relative filed by his US citizen wife.  Mr. D was previously granted voluntary departure by the Baltimore Immigration Court and his case was appealed and then remanded back to the Immigration Court.  Through BOILA's efforts, his removal proceedings were administratively closed and BOILA looks forward to assisting Mr. D in obtaining his green card.

Ms. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of her application to adjust her status to permanent residence based on her approved Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen husband.  BOILA was successful in showing that Ms. N is in a genuine marriage with her husband and in ultimately obtaining her green card despite the fact that Ms. N's husband had previously withdrawn an earlier petition he filed for her as the couple was previously contemplating divorce. 

Mr. I, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen. BOILA was successful in assisting Mr. I obtain US citizenship despite the fact that he had some past criminal charges although none of which were convictions.

Mr. D, a native and citizen of Mali,was granted approval of his N-400 Application for Naturalization and has now become a United States citizen. Through several inquiries, BOILA was successful in pressuring USCIS to adjudicate Mr. D's naturalization application which was pending since 2010.

Ms. D, a native and citizen of Liberia, was granted approval of her adjustment of status application based on her approved I-130 Petition for Alien Relative filed by her US citizen spouse.  BOILA was successful in assisting Ms. D in obtaining her green card although Ms. D has a minor criminal record.

Mrs. F, a native and citizen of Angola, was granted approval of her waiver of inadmissibility application before the Philadelphia Immigration Court.  Mrs. F has been in removal proceedings since 2010 and a waiver of her inadmissibility was necessary due to certain misrepresentations she made during her consulate interview.    BOILA was successful in persuading the Immigration Court that Mrs. F's waiver was warranted due to the extreme hardship to her U.S. citizen husband and four daughters would endure in the event of her removal.

Ms. N, a native and citizen of Cameroon, was granted asylum by the Baltimore Immigration Court based on persecution she suffered her political activism with University of Buea Student Union (UBSU) and the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC).  With BOILA's assistance, Ms. N's asylum application was granted by the Immigration Court.

Most of the general public is not aware of the way in which immigration courts function in the United States.  With all the discussion in the media concerning undocumented child migrants and increased deportations, the realities of the current immigration court system should be more publicized.  According to the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) there are presently 227 field judges across the nation taking on a docket of more than 375 thousand cases!  Even for those that do not know much about the immigration court system, these figures are striking and suggest an unmanageable reality.

The immigration court system is underfunded and under-staffed creating severe backlog and ultimately calling the entire process into question.  There is pressure on local judges to move through cases quickly, at times hearing more than 50 cases a day.  If appropriate and adequate attention is not being given to the respondents, how can we have faith in our decision-makers?  Unfortunately, only more problems are emerging as decisions are appealed.  The lack of due process at the lower immigration courts produces the crisis at the federal level. 

Substantial changes must be implemented in order to remedy the current crisis facing the nation's immigration court system.  Immigration Judge Marks remarked, "We deal with cases that are, in effect, death penalty cases.  Some of the defendants may be killed if they're returned to their home countries."  This realization is striking and if more people were made aware, perhaps more attention would be given in support of meaningful immigration reform and concerted action.

The United States immigration courts have placed the burden of proof on the accused.  This means that these immigrants are guilty of illegally entering the country until proven innocent.  Their lack of financial access to an attorney, lack of understanding of the English language and the young ages of these juveniles do not matter; they are still subject to this system. 

More funding must be directed to immigration courts in order to ensure a more reasonable system.  Unfortunately, recent news reports cite Congress as ignoring the Obama administration's request to accelerate spending on immigration courts.  His request was made with particular attention given to the high rates of unaccompanied minors at the border.  These cases have been put on a fast track for adjudication since they are children.  This does not take into account all the pending cases that have been placed on the back burner due to under-staffing and the ill-equipped court system.  Congress has increased spending for Border Patrol agents and detention centers, disregarding the need of immigration judges and the back log of cases climbing to 400,000.

The Department of State has announced that it will change fees for certain types of applications. These fee changes will take effect on September 12, 2014. The most important changes include a reduction in the E Treaty Investor/Treaty Trader fees from $270 to $205 and an increase in the fee for a K Fiancé Visa from $240 to $265. 

Other significant changes include an increase in the processing fees for immigrant visa applications for the immediate relative family-based preference (from $230 to $325) and a decrease in the fee for employment-based preference categories (from $405 to $345). Application fees will be grandfathered for applicants that paid their visa fee before September 12, 2014 and will have their visa interview on or before December 11, 2014. Applicants who paid their fees before September 12, 2014, but with visa appointments after December 12, 2014 will have to pay any increase in fees. There will be no refunds for visa application fees that were paid before September 12, 2014 where the new fee has decreased.

On September 17, 2014 the BIA held in Matter of KA that an alien who was admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident is considered lawfully admitted for permanent residence and is barred from establishing eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility if he or she is later convicted of an aggravated felony. 

In 1991 the respondent, a native and citizen of South Korea, was admitted to the United States as a conditional permanent resident by being the spouse of a United States citizen.  Subsequent to his admission as a conditional permanent resident, in 2005 and 2006 he was convicted of a theft and a robbery offense and removal proceedings were initiated.  At his hearing before the Immigration Judge the respondent applied for adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen and also sought for a waiver of inadmissibility under 212(h) of the INA because of his convictions in 2005 and 2006.  At the hearing the Immigration Judge held that the respondent had been convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission and was therefore barred from eligibility for a 212(h) waiver.

Section 212(h) of the INA provides for a discretionary waiver of some of the crime related inadmissibility grounds.  A 212(h) waiver will waive the inadmissibility grounds relating to:  (1) crimes involving moral turpitude; (2) engaging in prostitution; (3) a single conviction for simple possession or being under the influence of 30 grams or less of marijuana, or an equivalent amount of hashish; (4) a conviction of two or more offenses with an aggregate sentence imposed of at least five years that took place more than 15 years before the current application with proof that the applicant is rehabilitated or (5) asserting immunity against prosecution of a serious crime. 

However, Section 212(h) includes a provision known as the Aggravated Felony Bar.  The Aggravated Felony Bar confirms that no waiver shall be granted to an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if since the date of the admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony.   

Thus, in this case the BIA was faced with the question of whether the Aggravated Felony Bar applies to the respondent, who was admitted into the United States as a conditional permanent resident.  Since the INA only states that the Aggravated Felony Bar is applicable to aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, the BIA had to determine whether an alien who is admitted as a conditional permanent resident is equivalent in meaning to an alien who is admitted for permanent residence.

As previously mentioned, the Immigration Judge held that the Aggravated Felony Bar applied to the respondent and thus indirectly holding that aliens who are admitted as a conditional permanent resident are also considered lawfully admitted for permanent residence.  The BIA agreed with this determination by analyzing whether admission of a conditional permanent resident as described under Section 216(a) is encompassed within the phrase lawfully admitted for permanent residence as described under Section 214(h).  The BIA noted that the plain language of a number of provisions in Section 216 clearly establishes that an alien admitted as a conditional permanent resident is in fact lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

Specifically, Section 216(a)(1) states that "an alien spouse... and an alien son or daughter... shall be considered, at the time of obtaining the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, to have obtained such status on a conditional basis...."  The BIA ultimately determined that the language of a number of provisions in Section 216 make it clear that permanent resident status is obtained on the date of an alien's initial admission as a conditional permanent resident.  Thus while an alien may be admitted to the United States under Section 216 on a conditional basis, such admission is an admission as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

Therefore because the respondent was admitted to the United States in 1991 as a conditional permanent resident he was admitted as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, thus the Immigration Judge properly determined that the respondent is subject to the Aggravated Felony Bar and is ineligible for a 212(h) waiver. 

Read the BIA Case Here...
 

The 2014 Ombudsman Annual Report, released by USCIS, indicated that the Request for Evidence rates for the L-1 intracompany transferee visa category is nearly 50 percent for the first half of the 2014 Fiscal Year.  This indicates a significant rise in the Request for Evidence rates for L-1 visas in recent years.  Despite this increase in Requests for Evidence the report also indicates that USCIS has approved more than 83% of the L-1A visa petitions, and more than 67% of the L-1B visa petitions.

The report holds that the high number of Requests for Evidence could indicate that USCIS needs to better articulate what requirements must be satisfied with respect to the L-1 visas.  Until these requirements are amended employers should expect  and be prepared to submit a substantial amount of documents for all L-1 petitions and for overall delays in the adjudication process.    

Read the Full Report Here...