The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection at an unknown time and place. Factual and Procedural History: 27 I&N Dec. Please see our separate article on that aspect of the decision. The case also concerned the respondent's attempt to have an untimely filed application for asylum considered. In this article, we will examine the facts and procedural history of the case, the Board's analysis and conclusion, and what the new precedent will mean going forward. The Board held that the statute nevertheless categorically defined a CIMT because it required that the dwelling be at least intermittently occupied. The specific issue in the instant case was that the statute at issue did not require that the dwelling in question have been occupied at the time of the burglary. The Board had previously held that burglary of a dwelling where a victim was present at the time of the burglary was a categorical CIMT. In Matter of J-G-D-F-, the Board was tasked with determining whether “burglary of a dwelling” in violation of section 164.225 of the Oregon Revised Statutes is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). On August 18, 2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedent decision in the Matter of J-G-D-F-, 27 I&N Dec. Introduction: Matter of J-G-D-F-, 27 I&N Dec. Determination that Respondent's Conviction Was a Categorical CIMT: 27 I&N Dec.Divisibility of the Statute and Modified Categorical Approach: 27 I&N Dec.
Categorical Approach, Definition of CIMT, and Arguments: 27 I&N Dec.Facts and Procedural History: 27 I&N Dec.Introduction: Matter of J-G-D-F-, 27 I&N Dec.
0 kommentar(er)
