Siskind Susser

Green Card LotteryABCs of ImmigrationHiring A LawyerHealth Care Info CenterImmigration SitesFashion, Arts & / Sports Newsletter

Siskind Immigration Bulletin Request Consultation Ask Visalaw Client Login
About the Firm
Our Offices
Our Team
In the News
Practice Areas and Services
Scheduling a Consultation
ABCs of Immigration
Requests For Proposals
Press Room


Immigration Forms
Government Processing Times
State Department Visa Bulletin
Siskind's Immigration Professional
Working in America
Washington Updates
Publications
The Visalaw Blog

MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION
LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION


LAUNCH CHAT

< back

 

News From The Courts

Ahmad v. INS

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2228

 

The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan and of Indian descent, appealed the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen in consideration of his Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim.  In the decision, the BIA took notice of a regime change in Pakistan following the Petitioner’s filing of a motion to reopen.  This change affected the BIA’s determination of the probability of future torture. 

 

The Court ruled that before taking notice of a change of government and the possible effects of the change on the Petitioner’s claim, the BIA must give the parties notice and opportunity to respond or show cause why administrative notice should not be taken.

 

The Court held that the BIA violated the Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by failing to give the Petitioner notice, before the decision was issued, of the BIA’s reliance on the regime change.  Without this knowledge, the Petitioner was unable to show that the regime change did not preclude the possibility of torture.

 

*****

 

Zagaryan v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2595

 

Edmond Avanes Zagaryan, a citizen of Armenia, petitioned for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Convention Against Torture (CAT).

 

The Ninth Circuit found that the evidence did not support the IJ’s determination that the Appellant’s account of his subjection to a pattern of beatings, death threats, and conscription, was not credible.  The IJ erred in determining that that the Appellant failed to show that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him with the Appellant provided evidence that compels a finding that the beatings, threats, and arrangements for him to be conscripted were committed by government forces.  The court also found that the omissions and inconsistencies cited by the IJ were minor and did not go to heart of alien's claim.

 

The Appellant’s petition was granted and remanded for further proceedings.

 

< BackIndex | Next >

 

Print This Page

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.

Siskind Susser Bland
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 38119
T. 800-343-4890 or 901-682-6455
F. 901-682-6394
Email: info@visalaw.com

Home | Immigration Bulletin | Green Card Lottery Center | ABCs of Immigration | Hiring A Lawyer
Hot Topics | Health Care Info Center | Immigration Sites | Search



This is an advertisement. Certification as an Immigration Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee. Siskind Susser Bland limits its practice strictly to immigration law, a Federal practice area, and we do not claim expertise in the laws of states other than where our attorneys are licensed. Siskind Susser Bland does not retain clients on the strength of advertising materials alone but only after following our own engagement procedures (e.g. interviews, conflict checks, retainer agreements). The information contained on this site is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide solutions to individual problems. Readers are cautioned not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel before relying on information on this site. Siskind Susser Bland and its advertisers are independent of each other and advertisers on this site are not being endorsed by Siskind Susser Bland by virtue of the fact that they appear on this page. Site is maintained by Siskind Susser Bland's Memphis, TN office and overseen by Gregory Siskind. Copyright © 2003-2006 Siskind Susser Bland. All rights reserved.