Archive For June 24, 2014

Asylum Applicants need not establish prima facie eligibility for relief in order to have hearing on the merits

Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014)
In the ordinary course of removal proceedings, an applicant for asylum or for withholding or deferral of removal is entitled to a hearing on the merits of those applications, including an opportunity to provide oral testimony and other evidence,without first having to establish prima facie eligibility for the requested relief. Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. 116 (BIA 1989), followed.
Court held
We conclude that in the ordinary course of removal proceedings, an
applicant for asylum or for withholding or deferral of removal is entitled to
a hearing on the merits of the applications, including an opportunity to
provide oral testimony and other evidence, without first having to establish
prima facie eligibility for the requested relief. See sections 240(b)(4)(B),
(c)(4)(B) of the Act; Matter of Fefe, 20 I&N Dec. at 118; 8 C.F.R.
§ 1240.11(c)(3); cf. Matter of Ruiz, 20 I&N Dec. 91, 93 (BIA 1989)
(holding that in absentia proceedings should have been reopened once the
alien established reasonable cause for his failure to appear, because he
retained the right to present his asylum claim at a full evidentiary hearing,
regardless of whether prima facie eligibility for relief had been shown).
Accordingly, we will remand the record for the Immigration Judge to
conduct a hearing on the merits of the respondent’s applications for asylum
and withholding of removal.

More

A parent’s continuous physical presence and continuous residence in the United States cannot be imputed to a child

Matter of DUARTE-LUNA and LUNA, 26 I&N Dec. 325 (BIA 2014)    Interim Decision #3804
A parent’s continuous physical presence and continuous residence in the United States
cannot be imputed to a child for purposes of establishing the child’s eligibility for Temporary Protected Status.
In a decision dated August 25, 2009, an Immigration Judge granted the
respondents’ applications for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) under
section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(a)
(2006). The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has appealed from
that decision. The respondents oppose the appeal. The appeal will be
sustained, and the record will be remanded to the Immigration Judge.
The respondents, who are natives and citizens of El Salvador, are two
sisters whose mother was granted TPS in 2001. Both respondents arrived
in the United States as minors on August 24, 2003, and were served with
notices to appear 2 days later. They subsequently filed applications for
TPS in 2005, and removal proceedings were administratively closed while
their applications were pending. The respondents’ applications were
denied and their appeals were dismissed. They subsequently filed renewed
applications, all of which were denied. Removal proceedings were then
recalendared.
In her decision, the Immigration Judge relied on two opinions of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in finding that the
continuous physical presence and continuous residence of the respondents’
mother could be imputed to them for purposes of establishing their
eligibility for TPS because they entered the United States as unemancipated
Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 325 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3804
326
minors. Cuevas-Gaspar v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 1013, 1021−29 (9th Cir.
2005); Lepe-Guitron v. INS, 16 F.3d 1021, 1025−26 (9th Cir. 1994). The
Immigration Judge consequently found the respondents eligible for TPS
and granted their applications for that relief.
Section 244(a) of the Act does not provide for “derivative” TPS status.
However, the regulations state that an applicant for TPS who is the child of
“an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant” may be eligible to
receive TPS through late registration. 8 C.F.R. § 1244.2(f)(2)(iv) (2013).1
The applicant must nevertheless satisfy several additional requirements,
including continuous physical presence in the United States since
the effective date of the foreign country’s most recent designation and
continuous residence in the country since the date designated by the
Attorney General. 8 C.F.R. § 1244.2(b), (c).2
The effective date of the TPS designation of El Salvador was March 9,
2001, and the Attorney General has designated February 13, 2001, as the
date by which the alien’s continuous residence in the United States must
have begun. See Designation of El Salvador Under Temporary Protected
Status Program, 66 Fed. Reg. 14,214, 14,215 (Mar. 9, 2001). Extensions
of TPS designations do not constitute new designations of TPS.
See De Leon-Ochoa v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 622 F.3d 341, 355−56 (3d Cir.
2010); Cervantes v. Holder, 597 F.3d 229, 234−36 (4th Cir. 2010);
Extension of the Designation of El Salvador for Temporary Protected
Status, 78 Fed. Reg. 32,418, 32,418 (May 30, 2013) (stating that applicants
must meet “all TPS eligibility criteria (including continuous residence in…
to see the entire case click here  http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol26/3804.pdf