ILW.COM - the immigration portal Seminars

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

Citations for ILW.COM's Seminar
"Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. On Immigration Law"
Session 3 held on December 1, 2005

For more info, or to signup online, click here.
For more info, or to signup by fax, click here.

From Mary Holper

NA 240(c)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(a)(burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that person is deportable is on ICE)

8 C.F.R. 1240.8(d)(burden of proof on the respondent to show eligibility for relief)

Shepard v. U.S., 125 S. Ct. 1254 (2005); Matter of Texeira, 21 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA 1996)(police reports are not part of the record of conviction)

INA 240(c)(3)(B); 8 C.F.R. 1003.41 (what is part of the record of conviction)

Cruz-Garza v. BICE, 396 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2005)(burden on ICE to show the conviction was vacated for immigration purposes only when ambiguout record of vacatur)

Matter of Cota, 23 I&N Dec. 849 (BIA 2005)(sentence can be reduced for immigration purposes only, even though conviction can't be vacated for immigration reasons only)

Matter of Luna, A74-317-521 (BIA Index Dec. 2000) (ICE has burden of showing returning LPR is seeking admission under INA 101(a)(13)(C) because he or she has been convicted of an offense described in INA 212(a)(2)) (I-213 record of inadmissible/deportable alien was insufficient evidence without bringing INS officer in to testify)

From Paromita Shah

The Real ID Act changed section INA 240(c) - adds new section making it INA Sec. 240(c)(4)

Effective dates:
New credibility and corroboration stds apply to all applications filed on or after May 11, 2005. (judicial review standards effective May 11, 2005- See practice advisories)


  • See Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924 (6th Cir. 2004)(holding adverse credibility findings must be based on issues that go to heart of claim, not irrelevant consistencies), Rodriguez-Galicia v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2005)(adverse credibility finding must be based on specific, cogent reasons and bear a legitimate nexus to the finding), also Uribe v. U.S. AG, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7956 (11th Cir. 2005), Gao v. Ashcroft, 299 F.3d 266 (3d Cir. 2002)(holding that adverse credibility findings must be based on substantial evidence, not speculation and conjecture) Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2003)(holding that where the principal source of evidence is applicant's testimony, credibility determinations based on appropriate factors is critical), Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that inconsistencies should not be viewed in isolation, but rather considered in light of all the evidence presented), Guan v. U.S.A.G. 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 1840, (5th Cir. 2005) (credibility determinations cannot be arbitrary)
  • Totality of the circumstances is an existing standard that courts and agencies apply in a variety of contexts. See e.g. U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 US 266 (2002) (determining whether a vehicle stop was reasonable) - criminal case but it is illustrative of one "totality of the circumstances" test


  • Matter of S-M-J, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 1997) - See Conference Committee Report for Real ID (Public law 109-72)
2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th Circuits follow S-M-J.
Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2004), El-Sheik v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 643 (8th Cir. 2004), Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2000), Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 342 (3d. Cir. 2001), Mutagwanya v. Gonzales, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7583 (5th Cir. 2005)
BUT see Balogun v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004) - grave concerns about S-M-J
9th Circuit rejected S-M-J,br> Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2000)

Non-asylum 9th Circuit cases: Vera-Villegas v. INS, 330 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003). See also Lopez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2004)