Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)

So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 407|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld a finding that the respondent was ineligible to adjust status under INA 245(i) because she entered on fraudulent passport and had no qualifying relative to apply for a waiver under INA 212(i). The Board remanded the record, however, because the immigration judge failed to consider the respondent’s application for voluntary departure. The decision was written by Member Anne Greer.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld a finding that the respondent was ineligible to adjust status under INA 245(i) because she entered on fraudulent passport and had no qualifying relative to apply for a waiver under INA 212(i). The Board remanded the record, however, because the immigration judge failed to consider the respondent’s application for voluntary departure. The decision was written by Member Anne Greer.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Apr 09, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

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

05/28/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Tsai, Wnsto W., Esq 6202 Wnston Drve Bethesda MD 20817
US
pamn o Jusc
xecutie Oce  Iat Reiew
Board of Immigration Appeals Oce of he Clerk
 5 I 07 Leesbug Pik Sute 2000 Fals Chc Vgna 050
OHS / ICE ce of hf Cousel BAL 31 Hopkns Plaza, Room 1600 Batmo MD 2201 Name: MRGAN  ANN TANESHA A 099-66-966 Date of ths notce: 4/3/ 204
clsed s a cy f te Bads decs ad de i te abeeeced case csue
 b: G  
ceey
D
c
Da Car Cef Clek
yug  Dk
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)
 
U 
of

·
Executive Oe
r
Iiaion Reiew Decision of he Board of mmiaion Appeals Fas Chrch, Vrgn
20530
Fie A0 16 6 Baimore, MD I r: SO AN ANEISHA MORG IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL Dae ON BEHAF OF RESPONDENT: Wo  ai, Equire CHARGE:  Noce Sec. 237(a)()(A, I& N Ac [8 U.S.C. § 22(a)()(A)] -
P
-
 04
Iadmiibe a ime o en or adjum of atu uder con 22(a()(C)(i of e Ac (u) Sc. 237(a)()(A), I& N Ac 8 USC § 122(a){)(A)-Iadmible  me of enr or aumen of au r econ 212(a)(7)(B()(II) of e Ac (conceded) Sec. 23(a)()(B), I& N Ac [8 USC. § 227(a)()(B)-I he Uie Sae i voaio of law (ud) APICATION Adjume of u; voluary depae Te reponde, a ave d cin of amca, appal om e Immiao uge Dcember , 2012, deco uag e carg of removabiy ag r d deyng er appcaon r adue of au purua o eco 245() of he Immgraion ad  Naona Ac (Ac), 8 U.S.C. § 255(), and volu depaur purua o eco 240B(b) of he Ac, 8 US.C. §122c(b). We wi remad e record o e Imaon Cou. We review r ce eor  nng of c, incudng e deeaio o credbilty, made by e Immaon udg 8 C.FR. § 1003(d)(3)(i. We revew de ovo a oer u, incudig weer e pai ave me e reea buren of proof ad iue of dcreion or uden. 8 CF R. § 003

( d(3)(ii T reponden e er appicaion aer May 1, 2005 rer,  provon of he REAL ID Ac apply (Rep' Ocobr 24, 2011, Documenar Submion a Ta B.
M
f -B-
24 &  Dec 42 (BIA 20 On appea, te repod argue ta te Imiao udg erred n odng a the Depare of Homela Scty (HS) aed i bur of prog by cear  convncg evidece a e  removable udr ecion 237(a))(A) of e Ac, 8 U.SC. § 1227(a)()(A),  a ae admb a e me of e due o aud or wlll mrepreeaon of a maerial c (I. a  Rp' Br a 2) We dice no c or n  Immigrao udge' ig a e repoden wroe a ged a amen, uder oah bere  ocr a Uied Sae Cp ad Immaon Service, ag a he eered  Ued Sa uing e papo o ad nvdal ned c emoniu. We kewe dce no clar or  e
Cite as: So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)
 
A9 166 96 Igraton Judges ning hat e esponden aache  airlne ice to the adusen applcaion pchased unde te same name
J.
a 5-6 DS x 1 abs B-C)
 See Anderson
v
Ci of Bessemer C, Nrth Carna
4 S 564 573- 98) whee hee ae wo peissible views o the evidence he c ndes choce beween hem is no cle eor);
Me o R-SH-
23 &N Dec 629 637 BIA 23) atng that a cal nding is ony clearly eoneous "when although here is evidence to support t the revewing cour on the enire evidence s le wih e dene and m convicton tha a mise has been commtted quoting
Une Saes
v
nted Ses Gypsu Co.
333 S 364 395 948))) e esponden atempted o rebu he conens of her swo saemen ough her on  tesimony claiming hat he sateme was coerce IJ at 6  at 16-2 26-29) oweve he Immiaion udge rejected this elanaton  at 6)
Iigration udge must give specic cogent reasons  an adverse credbliy deerminaton
 Hu Pan
v
oler
737 F3d 921 98 4h Cr 13)
Dankn

Goes
495 F3d 13 2 4h Cr 7) noing tha inconsisent statements and conadctoy evdence quai as cogent reasons tha cou suppo an advese credbi nding)
acor
secion 28b))B)ii) of he Act 8 .SC  18b))B)iii) allowing he mmaton Juge to rely on cors such a the plausibii o the applicant's account he consstency beeen he applcan's en  ora saements he neal consstency whn such statements d he consistency of such statemens wh oher evidence of recor in makng a credlity deteinaion) he Immgration Judge is no requie to accept he resondent's testmony when inconsisencies ase even f e esondent povides a plausible exlanation r te inconsisencies
 See Dankn
v.
Goaes supr
at 22 emhasizing ha dscepances in the applct's tesimony and coroboaive docents may suppor an advese cedibility ndng even whee he applcant oers a plausible explation r the nconsistencie) e mmgration Juge gave specic cogen reasons r rejecting the respondens cm o coecon where it wa not cooboraed an was othese conraicted by her swo atement  at 56) Moreove e esponent's claim a she did no enter the nited States wih a audulent spor s udeined both by e swo staement and e respodent's o submission of a airlie tcke beaing he same name as the asspot a she alegedly used to ente hs coty I.J a 6 DHS xh

ab C) ecause the responden wa nadmssbe when she enee e nited States in 1998 se s statutorly nelgle to adust he stas unde secton 245i) of te Act uness se c esabsh he eigblity r a wve of nadmssblity under section 22i of the Act
ee
secon 24i)2) of the Act 8 SC  125i)) requirng at e alien e admsble o he nted Sates r peent resence) section 212i) of the Ac 8 SC  82) auhorizng a waer of inaissibil  aud o will misepesenaion only wen he esal to adm
e ien woud rest in exeme hdshp o
a
qng retve,
r
n
 the cse of
a sepeitoning batee spose the alen hersel Because the resondent concedes at
she
has no quaiing elatve  a waive she s inelgible o adjus he stas he espoent also apeals om te Immiation Judge's decision to deny her voltay depae
Immgraion udge may grn voln deparue where
1
an alienhs been
. a =
2
_:
Cite as: So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)

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)//-->