Agopian v. Holder
**Derivative asylum**
Because neither this Court nor the BIA has addressed the question of whether or how a child named for derivative asylee status in a parent’s asylum application may proceed in seeking asylum when the principal applicant is no
longer seeking such relief, the case is remanded for the BIA to determine in the first instance the status of Agopian’s application for asylum.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/03-73608.pdf
Singh v. Holder
**Credibility**
Singh’s inconsistent testimony about his father’s last arrest and the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and declaration concerning whether or not Singh received medical treatment after his arrest warrant an adverse credibility finding.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/04-75286.pdf
Lindawati v. Holder
**Persecution; due process**
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Lindawati’s application for asylum because she failed to establish that her mistreatment in Indonesia rose to the level of persecution. In addition, the IJ did not violate due process by “preventing” Lindawati’s husband from speaking. The proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented form reasonably presenting his case.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/04-76025.pdf
Hussain v. Holder
2002 order summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision. The record shows that the motion to reopen and notice of appearance were filed only in Zahid Hussain’s name, such that the BIA properly noted that Talat Hussain
was not a party to the motion. Likewise, the record reflects that the December 2002 summary affirmance was mailed to Talat Hussain’s counsel of record.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-70453.pdf
Carrera v. Holder
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rosas Carrera voluntarily departed the United States in 1997 in lieu of proceedings before an IJ and therefore broke his accrual of continuous physical presence. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carrera’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s order.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-70641.pdf
Barrientos v. Holder
*Due process**
Barrientos’s contention that the IJ violated due process by displaying bias is unsupported by the record; the proceedings were not so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-71812.pdf
Campos v. Holder
**Equitable tolling**
Campos’ motion to reopen was untimely and equitable tolling did not apply because Campos married her United States citizen husband after the motions deadline, so her motion would have been untimely regardless of the alleged misconduct.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-73246.pdf
He v. Holder
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that He did not establish past persecution because the mistreatment He experienced at the hands of the Chinese police did not rise to the level of persecution.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-74575.pdf
Zhang v. Holder
**Credibility**
Zhang’s omission from his asylum application that he received a police summons shortly before leaving China, causing him to go into hiding until he departed for the United States, warrants an adverse credibility finding because the omission because the event was a “dramatic, pivotal” one.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-74605.pdf
Puga-Sanchez v. Holder
**Motion for continuance**
The IJ did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to continue since relief was not immediately available.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/28/05-76577.pdf
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment