(A)  Requirement of Injunction.  This deportation ground requires that the noncitizen must have been enjoined by the protection order.  That means that the person must have been named in the protection order; the papers seeking the protection order must have been served upon him or her in advance of the issuance of the order; and the protection order itself must have been served on him or her.  Otherwise, the order does not in fact enjoin the noncitizen.  The statute must be read as including the implicit requirement that the order must lawfully enjoin the person against whom it is directed.  A family law specialist should be consulted for the applicable state law basis for these requirements of a valid injunction.

 

SAFE HAVENS " DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (We recognize that not all aspects of a protection order will trigger section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Ninth Circuit noted that provisions requiring attendance at and payment for a counseling program or requiring the payment of costs for supervision during parenting time will not be covered by section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii).); quoting Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).

BIA

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (Kansas conviction for violation of a temporary protection order issued pursuant to Kansas Protection from Abuse Act 60-3106, in violation of Kan. Stats. 21-3843(a)(1), does not categorically constitute a deportable offense under section INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), because the statute of conviction includes violations of non-DV restraining orders such as Kan. Stat. 60-1607 which pertains to orders involving the disposition of property pending final judgment on a petition for divorce).

SAFE HAVENS " DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Matter of Strydom, 25 I. & N. Dec. 507 (BIA May 24, 2011) (We recognize that not all aspects of a protection order will trigger section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Ninth Circuit noted that provisions requiring attendance at and payment for a counseling program or requiring the payment of costs for supervision during parenting time will not be covered by section 237(a)(2)(E)(ii).); quoting Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).