E-F-H-L

Board of Immigration Appeals

E-F-H-L

27 I. & N. Dec. 226

CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 2018

DocketID 3917

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 I. & N. Dec. 226 (E-F-H-L) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Immigration Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

E-F-H-L, 27 I. & N. Dec. 226 (bia 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3917

Matter of E-F-H-L-, Respondent Decided by Attorney General March 5, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

The Attorney General referred the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014), to himself for review and vacated that decision.

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(h)(l)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer to me its decision in Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014), and I vacate that decision. In this matter, the respondent conceded removability at the outset of removal proceedings and requested relief from removal pursuant to an application for asylum and withholding of removal. The presiding Immigration Judge determined, without holding an evidentiary hearing, that the respondent’s application failed as a matter of law to make a prima facie case that he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, and he denied the application. The respondent appealed on the merits to the Board. The Board remanded, holding that a respondent applying for asylum and withholding of removal was ordinarily entitled to a full evidentiary hearing. The respondent subsequently withdrew his application for asylum and withholding of removal with prejudice. On the parties’ motion, the Immigration Judge administratively closed removal proceedings to allow the adjudication of a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) filed on behalf of the respondent. Because the application for relief which served as the predicate for the evidentiary hearing required by the Board has been withdrawn with prejudice, the Board’s decision is effectively mooted. I accordingly vacate the decision of the Board in this matter, and I also direct that this matter be recalendared and restored to the active docket of the Immigration Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 226 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3917

Matter of E-F-H-L-, Respondent Decided by Attorney General March 5, 2018

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General

The Attorney General referred the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014), to himself for review and vacated that decision.

BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.l(h)(l)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer to me its decision in Matter of E-F-H-L-, 26 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2014), and I vacate that decision. In this matter, the respondent conceded removability at the outset of removal proceedings and requested relief from removal pursuant to an application for asylum and withholding of removal. The presiding Immigration Judge determined, without holding an evidentiary hearing, that the respondent’s application failed as a matter of law to make a prima facie case that he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, and he denied the application. The respondent appealed on the merits to the Board. The Board remanded, holding that a respondent applying for asylum and withholding of removal was ordinarily entitled to a full evidentiary hearing. The respondent subsequently withdrew his application for asylum and withholding of removal with prejudice. On the parties’ motion, the Immigration Judge administratively closed removal proceedings to allow the adjudication of a Petition for Alien Relative (Form I-130) filed on behalf of the respondent. Because the application for relief which served as the predicate for the evidentiary hearing required by the Board has been withdrawn with prejudice, the Board’s decision is effectively mooted. I accordingly vacate the decision of the Board in this matter, and I also direct that this matter be recalendared and restored to the active docket of the Immigration Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 I. & N. Dec. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-f-h-l-bia-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack