Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
V-V-, AXXX XXX 678 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)

V-V-, AXXX XXX 678 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 306|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture upon finding the Immigration Judge failed to consider evidence relating to prison conditions in Thailand or the applicability of Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2008), to the respondent's case. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further consideration of the respondent's application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture upon finding the Immigration Judge failed to consider evidence relating to prison conditions in Thailand or the applicability of Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2008), to the respondent's case. The decision was written by Vice Chairman Charles Adkins-Blanch.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Oct 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/03/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Feroi, James A. Esquire
US Department of Justice
Executive Oce r Immgation Review
Board of Immigration AppealsOce of he Clek
510 7 Lebur  g Pik, Sut 2000Fal Chuc. Vnia 030
Immgrant 
&
Ref Appeae Cener LLC3602 s DveOHS/Cc o Chief Counse
SFR 
P 0
Box 26449Sn Fancisc CA 94126-6449Alexand VA 2232Ne: VVA 3678ae o hs ntice 10/4/23
nclosed is a copy of he Board's decsion d orde n te above-reenced case.cose
l Mb:Ak-Bh, Ch K.
Sincerey,
D
c
t
Dona CaChief Cerk
d 
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: V-V, AXXX XX3 678 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)
 
r.
.US Depmen of Jusice 
Execuve Oce r Imaon RevewDecison of te Bod of gaon AppealFas Chch,
Vir
g
a
22041
 Fle A  678 -S Frcisco, CA
eV V  RMOVL ROCEGS APPEL 
BEHF OF
 RESPET: Jes eli, EsuirePICATIN el of removDate:
OCT 4 2013
 The repodet, a ative d citze of Tld, h ppealed om the o udge's decisio dated May 29, 201, to the extet that e ao Judge denied e plicatio fr  efeal o removal he record ll be emded to e ation udge.e Bord reves  migratio Judge's dings f ct, icludi nngs  to he crebilty of testimoy, der e "clely eoeous sd.8 CF.
§
100.(d)3;
Matter of S-H-,
 23 I&N Dec. 462, 46465
(I
 2002). The Bod revies questios of law, discretion, d judet d all oer issues i eas om decsios of atio Judes de ovo. 8 CR
§
100(d}()(i)
atter oASB,
 2 &N Dec. 493
(I
 2008)he sodent, o was cnvcted in the Uited Staes
r
 a conole substc violato,s beg prosecuted d imprsoned n Thd based o her past crmn tiviy he reondent, o pea, gues tat ·e Imigatio Judge required te resodet to meet  coect bren of o e respondent also argues that the migation Judge d not coser revt evnce d reevt cas law of e te Stes Co of Appeals r ei Ccut.We do not conclude that the maio uge required e respodent to meet  coect d f proo Seccaly, e rodent ares that, we e Immiration udge stated at a shog of a"cle pobbil of tore  reuired, he was exceedg e eue std of"more kely no. The relevt eerl regulaton sttes that the burden of poofis on e applct to estalsh tt it is "more liey th otat he or she woul be toured if roved8 CFR.
§
120816(c)() he regulati does ot use the te "cle probability However, e "ore lke  t dd   "cear ai' s av  un   equvaent
See LNS.
v.
Stevi,
 467 .S 407, 2
8)
 Ts e miaion uge di not reuire the resonent o mt  coec en of poo Te reoet asgues at the aion udge did not consider reevt evidece d relevt cae la The aon Judge's decisio oes ot reect that he considered he submssion y oraphog Leksuch, Esque (Exh.
4).
See ole v. Holder
 659 F 762
-)
Cite as: V-V, AXXX XX3 678 (BIA Oct. 4, 2013)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->