Phone: 312-714-2800
September 2026 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -
Recent Posts
- Matter of Diji: The Board Killed a 25-Year Notice Rule It Didn’t Need To September 4, 2026
- Protected From Deportation, Deported Anyway August 29, 2026
- USCIS Can Now Send Asylum Seekers to Immigration Court Without an Interview August 22, 2026
- The Public Charge Net Widens on September 18, 2026 August 19, 2026
- The Board Cuts the Right to Counsel Down to Ten Days August 15, 2026
Archives
Categories
RSS FeedLinks
- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD) CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 25-M-397(SCD)
- Law Offices of Michael D. Baker
-
Tag Archives: Cancellation of Removal
⚖️ Matter of Lopez Rico: One Ballot, Counted Twice — and the Fifth Amendment Trap
The Board made unlawful voting a significant adverse factor and held that taking the Fifth can be used against you. Fourteen years between the ballot and the order. Matter of Lopez Rico, 29 I&N Dec. 780 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision … Continue reading
Posted in BIA, Board of Immigration Appeals
Tagged 18 USC 611, 29 I&N Dec. 780, 8 USC 1227(a)(6), adverse inference, Bayo v. Napolitano, BIA precedent, Cancellation of Removal, discretionary relief, election integrity, ERIC, Fifth Amendment, Fitzpatrick v. Sessions, general intent, immigration court, INA 237(a)(6), INA 240A(a), Interim Decision 4223, Keathley v. Holder, Kimani v. Holder, lawful permanent resident, Matter of C-V-T-, Matter of Guevara, Matter of Lopez Rico, Matter of Marin, Matter of Marques, Michael D. Baker, noncitizen voting, official authorization, Pereida v. Wilkinson, removal proceedings, self-incrimination, unlawful voting, voter registration, voter roll maintenance
Leave a comment
Each alien seeking cancellation of removal must fulfill the residency requirements on their own. Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez
A Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal is upheld, where: 1) the aliens lacked the required years of continuous presence and lawful permanent resident status; and 2) the BIA’s rejection of imputation of their parents’ years … Continue reading
