1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

BIA remanded the case to Judge

Discussion in 'Political Asylum in USA' started by letmestay, Mar 10, 2011.

  1. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    Me and my husband applied asylum in 2007.My Husband got Withholding of removal in 2009 but i got nothing as i had different reasons for applying asylum.We both appealed to BIA and BIA remanded MY case back to Judge and gave my husbands WOR same.
    WE then appealed to federal court now.
    Now we got letter from Court (where we had interview) to appear in person. My question is why they called ME to appear though BIA denied my appeal. Have they called me to arrest me or they will open case again or what.
    Thanks for your kind replies and suggestions.
  2. Mauricio22

    Mauricio22 Registered Users (C)

    I am so sorry to hear about all your troubles getting asylum. I really don't have any info on this, an attorney will probably be able to help you better
  3. BigJoe5

    BigJoe5 Registered Users (C)

    You just said that your case was remanded....of course you would see the judge again. What did the BIA say in the Decision? What did they order the IJ to do on remand?
  4. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    BIA ordered the record to be remanded to IJ for security investigations. law enforcement and update identity.
  5. BigJoe5

    BigJoe5 Registered Users (C)

    They usually only demand that stuff to be completed in order to grant relief such as adjustment. Is that what is happening?

    8 CFR § 1003.47 Identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations relating to applications for immigration relief, protection, or restriction on removal.

    (a) In general. The procedures of this section are applicable to any application for immigration relief, protection, or restriction on removal that is subject to the conduct of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations as described in paragraph (b) of this section, in order to ensure that DHS has completed the appropriate identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations before the adjudication of the application.
  6. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    8 CFR § 1003.47(h) yes but this is for my husband but why my case is consolidated after denied from BIA.
  7. BigJoe5

    BigJoe5 Registered Users (C)

    IF one of you gets asylum, the other could get status as a derivative...... You are changing information from one post to the next...take a deep breath and sum it up.

    You have not provided very much detail so, it makes dealing with this thread too much work. IF you provide a comprehensive synopsis of the situation you might get a useful response.

    It's like pulling teeth....one small difficult extraction (of detail) at a time...
  8. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    Sorry, but I think you misunderstood in my first block only i told that he got Withholding of removal and in this no derivatives can get any benefit.
  9. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    OK again, i am putting the exact decision of BIA
    Respondent appeal Dismissed
    DHS appeal is Dismissed
    Further order- Pursuant to 8 C.R.F 1003.1(d)(6), the record is remanded to the IJ for the purpose of allowing the DHS the opportunity to complete or update identity,law enforcement,or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R. 1003.47(h). See Background and Security investigations in Proceedings Before IJ and the BIA appeals,70 Fed. Reg. 4743,4752(Jan 31,2005).

    Now again i am telling you that we both got letter from Court where we had interview to appear in person on a specific date.
    Please let me know your kind opinions and why they called ME alongwith my husband.
  10. assylum

    assylum Registered Users (C)

    They usually conduct a background check before granting a relief. Withholding of removal is considered to be a relief as well.

    Keep in mind that the next hearing is only to give the DHS the opportunity to conduct a background check.

    This is the list of all forms of relief: You might get one of them depending on your case. If you filed for I-589, then most likely that form# 1 and 7 might be granted to you.

    (1) Asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“Act”);
    (2) Adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident under sections 209 or 245
    of the Act, or any other provision of law;
    (3) Waiver of inadmissibility or deportability under sections 209(c), 212, or 237 of the
    Act, or any provision of law;
    (4) Permanent resident status on a conditional basis or removal of the conditional basis of
    permanent resident status under sections 216 or 216A of the Act, or any other provision
    of law;
    (5) Cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation under section 240A or former 1
    These procedures do not apply to detained cases. The regulation provides “DHS is
    responsible for obtaining biometrics and other biographical information with respect to any alien
    in detention.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d).
    - 3 -
    section 244 of the Act, or any other provision of law;
    (6) Relief from removal under former section 212(c) of the Act;
    (7) Withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or under the Convention
    Against Torture;
    (8) Registry under section 249 of the Act; and
    (9) Conditional grants relating to the above, such as for applications seeking asylum
    pursuant to section 207(a)(5) of the Act or cancellation of removal in light of section
    240A(e) of the Act
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2011
  11. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    Thanks Assylum for your quick response!
    Thanks to BigJoe5 also.
  12. letmestay

    letmestay Registered Users (C)

    We went to court the other day. Filled up form,went to another place for Fingerprinting and it was done the same day.
    There was no relief given to me but another date after 6 months to appear again.
    Can some one tell me what is the next step if the third circuit denies my appeal.IS THIS A LAST STOP BEFORE THEY DEPORT ME TO INDIA.
    Please reply.
  13. BigJoe5

    BigJoe5 Registered Users (C)

    These basic forms of relief are all based on the same underlying claim (or back-story) that you make. Asylum has a basic one-year filing deadline, (sometimes you can get past that deadline) and after that at each stage, the burden of proof increases. For asylum, a showing of past persecution OR a showing of a subjectively real and objectively reasonable "well-founded" fear of persecution will suffice. For WOR, you must show that it "more likely than not that you'll be persecuted". For CAT Relief you must establish that it is "more likely than not that you'll be tortured or even killed" in order to get relief. IF half of a married couple gets something is is very probable that the "other-half" of that couple will get it too.

    Denial of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief

    1. Asylum

    “The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and
    procedures established . . . under this section if the Secretary . . . or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section
    1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A). A “refugee” is a person who “is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or
    herself of the protection of” his or her home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” § 1101(a)(42)(A).

    2. Withholding of Removal

    The Attorney General generally must grant withholding of removal if XXX proves his “life or freedom would be threatened” in Neverland on account of his religion
    or political opinion or another protected ground. See §1231(b)(3)(A). The test is forward looking. However, if XXX establishes he suffered past persecution on account of his religion or political opinion etc..., he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(i); Beck v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 737, 739 (8th Cir. 2008). Without a showing of past persecution, it is XXX’s burden to demonstrate “a clear probability of future persecution” in order to obtain withholding of removal. Beck, 527 F.3d at 739. A clear probability of future persecution is a higher standard than the “well-founded fear of persecution” standard utilized in asylum proceedings. See Ladyha v. Holder, 588 F.3d 574, 579 (8th Cir. 2009). “In the absence of a statutory definition for persecution, we have held that it is an ‘extreme concept’ that involves the infliction or threat of death, torture, or injury to one’s person or freedom, on account of a protected
    characteristic.” Malonga v. Holder, 621 F.3d 757, 764 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Sholla v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 946, 951 (8th Cir. 2007)).

    3. CAT Relief

    To be eligible for withholding of removal under the CAT, it was XXX’s burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he would be tortured if removed to Neverland. See 8 C.F.R. 208.16(c)(2). Torture is: Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him or her for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such
    pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in any official capacity. 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Even if XXX were subjected to severe pain or suffering in the 1998 beating by neighbors, as discussed above, there is no evidence of any nexus between the pain or suffering and the Neverlandian government. XXX’s petition for CAT relief must be denied.

Share This Page