U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of the Director
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2400
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
NEWS RELEASE Contact: Office of Public Affairs
(703)305-0289, Fax: (703) 605-0365
June 16, 2000
BIA TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
A panel of three members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) will travel to Chicago, Illinois, on June 16, 2000, to hear oral arguments in five pending appellate cases. Board Members Lauren Mathon, Neil P. Miller, and Anthony C. Moscato will hear the oral arguments in the Parsons Memorial Courtroom at the District Court, 219 South Dearborn, 25 th Floor, Chicago, at 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m.
This is the Board’s second visit to Chicago to hear oral arguments. Another panel heard oral arguments at the Chicago Immigration Court in April 1999. That same year, the Board also traveled to Miami, Florida, and in 1998 they heard oral arguments in Los Angeles, California, and San Antonio, Texas. These oral arguments are scheduled as part of an on-going initiative to make the immigration appeals process more accessible to parties in other parts of the country. It is part of a larger outreach effort by the Executive Office for Immigration Review to improve customer service overall. The cases scheduled to be heard involve interesting or novel aspects of law suitable for oral argument. The cases are summarized below.
Matter of Lulgjuraj, A18 712 781 - This case involves an ethnic Albanian from Serbia-Montenegro who entered the United States as a refugee when he was a child, and later committed crimes here. The Immigration Judge found the respondent ineligible for withholding of removal but granted deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture. This case involves cross-appeals. At issue on one side in this case is whether the respondent’s 1974 youthful offender “adjudication” under New York law is a conviction for immigration purposes and, if it is, whether it is a “particularly serious crime.” The issue on the other side is whether the Immigration Judge erred in granting deferral of removal.
Matter of Vay, A27 303 634 - This case involves an alien who entered the United States in 1984 as a 6-year-old derivative refugee from Cambodia. In December 1997, he was convicted of burglary of a vehicle, under section 459 of the California Penal Code. He received a 16-month sentence. At issue in this case is whether the respondent’s conviction constitutes a “particularly serious crime”