(B)  Effective Date Issues. The current statutory bar for particularly serious crimes and aggravated felons applies to all applications for asylum made after April 1, 1997.[374]  The initial statutory aggravated felony bar[375] to asylum was effective only for applications made following November 29, 1990.[376]  The first mandatory PSC bar to asylum was created by regulation, effective October 1, 1990.[377]  The Ninth Circuit held that the regulatory bar[378] could not be applied retroactively to a noncitizen who was convicted prior to the October 1, 1990 effective date of the regulation.[379]

[374] IIRAIRA § 604(c).

[375] Note that this bar only applied to aggravated felonies, without reference to “particularly serious crimes.”

[376] Immigration Act of 1990 § 515(a)(1), adding INA § 208(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d).  Effective date provided at Immigration Act of 1990 § 515(b)(1).

[377] See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(A) (2002).  Prior to October 1, 1990, conviction of a particularly serious crime was negative discretionary factor, not a mandatory bar.  See Yang v. INS, 79 F.3d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1996).

[378] 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(D).

[379] Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. July 8, 2003).  See also Batanic v. INS, 12 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 1993).

BIA

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS " ASYLEE
Matter of C-J-H, 26 I. & N. Dec. 284 (BIA 2014) (noncitizen who has already adjusted status from asylee to LPR cannot re-adjust under INA 209(b), as a defense to removal).

RELIEF " ASYLUM " SERIOUS NONPOLITICAL CRIME
Matter of EA, 26 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA Sept. 11, 2012) (an IJ should balance the seriousness of the criminal acts against the political aspect of the conduct to determine whether the criminal aspect of the acts outweighs their political nature).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM " CRIMES " REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
Matter of DK, 25 I&N Dec. 761 (BIA Apr. 2012) (noncitizen refugee under INA 207, 8 U.S.C. 1157, who has not adjusted status to LPR status may be placed in removal proceedings without a prior determination by the DHS that the noncitizen is inadmissible; distinguishing Matter of Garcia-Alzugaray, 19 I&N Dec. 407 (BIA 1986); when removal proceedings are initiated against a noncitizen who has been "admitted" to the United States as a refugee, the charges of removability under INA 237, 8 U.S.C. 1227 apply).

RELIEF " WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING
Matter of RAM, 25 I&N Dec. 657 (BIA 2012) (In determining, on a case by case basis, whether an offense is a particularly serious crime, see Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2011), we examine the nature of the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007), affd, N-A-M- v. Holder, 587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 898 (2011); see also Matter of L-S-, 22 I&N Dec. 645, 651 (BIA 1999) (determining that consideration of the individual facts and circumstances is appropriate); Matter of Q-T-M-T-, 21 I&N Dec. 639 (BIA 1996). [A]ll reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information, as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. at 342; see also Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that it is proper to consider the respondents testimony in a particularly serious crime determination).).

REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS " EVIDENCE
Matter of Velasquez, 25 I&N Dec. 680 (BIA 2012) (to be admissible as evidence of a conviction, an electronic disposition must comply with the authentication requirements of 8 CFR 1003.41(d)).

RELIEF " ASYLUM " TERMINATION " IJ LACKS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DHS TERMINATION OF ASYLEE STATUS
Matter of ASJ, 25 I&N Dec. 893 (BIA 2012) (an Immigration Judge lacks jurisdiction to review the termination of an aliens asylum status by the Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a)).

Fourth Circuit

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - NON-AGGRAVATED FELONY CAN BE PSC
Gao v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 624312 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010) (federal conviction for unlawful export of military technology, in violation of 50 U.S.C. 1702 and 1705(b), was a "particularly serious crime," even though it was not classified as an aggravated felony: "We defer to the BIA's reasoned view that an offense need not be an aggravated felony to qualify as a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding. Furthermore, we conclude that the BIA may determine that a non-aggravated felony is a particularly serious crime for purposes of asylum through the process of case-by-case adjudication.").

Sixth Circuit

RELIEF - WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL - SERIOUS NONPOLITICAL CRIMES
Urbina-Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2010) (denying withholding of removal where noncitizen testified he had assaulted another with a bat as part of a gang in Honduras).

RELIEF - ASYLUM
Stolaj v. Holder, 577 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2009) (status as a former asylee granted LPR status does not prevent DHS from initiating removal proceedings based on fraud at the time asylum was granted).

Seventh Circuit

RELIEF " CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE " DEFERRAL OF REMOVAL " JUDICIAL REVIEW
Wanjiru v. Holder, 705 F.3d 258 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2013) (court has jurisdiction to review denial of a request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture; INA 242(a)(2)(C) does not bar review).

RELIEF " ASYLUM
Pronsivakulchai v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1019 (7th Cir. Jul. 25, 2011) (asylum, withholding and CAT barred under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii), and 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(d)(2), respectively, where government had serious reason to believe that petitioner had committed offenses related to drug trafficking).

RELIEF - WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
Issaq v. Holder, 617 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. Aug. 17, 2010) (Illinois conviction of residential burglary crime leading to an aggregate of more than five years' imprisonment constituted a "particularly serious crime" felony for purposes of withholding of removal).

Eighth Circuit

RELIEF - ASYLUM
Freeman v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 760238 (8th Cir. Mar. 8, 2010) (noncitizen who has been granted a waiver of inadmissibility under INA 209(c) is still "removable" for purposes of barring circuit court jurisdiction under INA 242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)).

Ninth Circuit

RELIEF " WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " TRANSPORTATION OF METHAMPHETAMINES
Perez-Palafox v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2014) (California conviction for transportation of methamphetamine, in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11379(a), constituted a particularly serious crime for purposes of barring withholding of removal).

RELIEF " ASYLUM " WITHHOLDING " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " RESISTING ARREST
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 2013 WL 208930 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2013) (particularly serious crime exception to withholding of removal was not facially unconstitutionally vague).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " MAIL FRAUD
Arbid v. Holder, 674 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2012) (neither BIA nor IJ abused their discretion in holding that petitioner was convicted of a "particularly serious crime" rendering him ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " RESIDENTIAL BURGLARY
Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 5607634 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2011) (California conviction for residential burglary, in violation of Penal Code 459, constitutes a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and is therefore a particularly serious crime); see United States v. Becker, 919 F.2d 568 (9th Cir. 1990) (California conviction of first-degree burglary under California Penal Code 459 is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) because the crime inherently involves a substantial risk of physical force); Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 10, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004) (The reckless disregard in[18 U.S.C.] 16 relates not to the general conduct or to the possibility that harm will result from a person's conduct, but to the risk that the use of physical force against another might be required in committing a crime. The classic example is burglary. A burglary would be covered under 16(b) not because the offense can be committed in a generally reckless way or because someone may be injured, but because burglary, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that the burglar will use force against a victim in completing the crime.) (footnote omitted).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM " AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE OFFENSES AS PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIMES BY REGULATION
Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (Attorney General has authority to designate offenses as particularly serious crimes through case-by-case adjudication as well as by regulation, for purposes of eligibility for political asylum).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM " PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME " DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) (conviction for driving under the influence could be considered particularly serious crime to disqualify a noncitizen from eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)).

RELIEF " ASYLUM " CRIMINAL BARS " SERIOUS NONPOLITICAL CRIME
Go v. Holder, __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 1678196 (9th Cir. May 5, 2011) (The INA bars an applicant from obtaining asylum and withholding relief when there are serious reasons to believe that he or she committed a serious nonpolitical crime before arriving in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii) (withholding). We interpret serious reasons' to believe as being tantamount to probable cause. McMullen v. INS, 788 F.2d 591, 599 (9th Cir.1986), overruled on other grounds by Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 751 n. 7 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc) (per curiam). Under our precedent, we must uphold the Board's conclusion that an alien is ineligible for relief if that determination is supported by substantial evidence. See id. We may reverse the decision of the Board only if the applicant shows that the evidence compels the conclusion that the asylum decision was incorrect. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006).; admission by respondent to drug trafficking in removal proceedings sufficient to establish serious reason to believe respondent had engage in a serious nonpolitical crime).

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - NO JUDICIAL REVIEW
Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) ("We do not have jurisdiction to evaluate discretionary decisions by the Attorney General, see 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), and therefore lack jurisdiction over the BIA's ultimate determination that Anaya committed a "particularly serious crime" when he drunkenly drove his car into an elderly victim's house and caused part of the wall to collapse on her."); see Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 935 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that "when the Attorney General decides that the alien's offense was a particularly serious crime, we lack jurisdiction to review such a decision because it is discretionary") (citation omitted); Afridi v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1212, 1218 (9th Cir.2006), overruled in part on other grounds by Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1160 n.15 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

RELIEF - ASYLIM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - EVIDENCE
Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (either party may introduce all reliable evidence concerning whether a conviction constitutes a particularly serious crime), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009); deferring to Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342, 344 (BIA October 24, 2007) ("all reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information, as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction"); see Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 980, 982 (9th Cir. 2007).

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - EVIDENCE
Anaya-Ortiz v. Holder, 594 F.3d 673 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (the Immigration Judge may consider respondent's testimony at the removal hearing in holding that he had been convicted of a "particularly serious crime"; "Where the BIA does not make an explicit adverse credibility finding, we must assume that [the petitioner's] factual contentions are true."), withdrawing and superseding opinion previously published at 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009); see Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342, 344 (BIA October 24, 2007) ("all reliable information may be considered in making a particularly serious crime determination, including the conviction records and sentencing information, as well as other information outside the confines of a record of conviction").

RELIEF - ASYLUM - ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 567 F.3d 437 (9th Cir. May 27, 2009) (a noncitizen who has adjusted status under INA 209(b) is no longer an asylee; the DHS does not have to terminate asylee status officially under INA 208(c)(2), (3), 8 C.F.R. 208.22, 208.24).

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Delgado v. Holder, 563 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2009) (superseding earlier opinion, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. October 8, 2008) (non-aggravated felony may still be considered a "particularly serious crime" for purposes of withholding of removal; the Attorney General may determine by adjudication that a crime is "particularly serious" without classifying it as such by regulation).

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - COURT OF APPEAL HAS PETITION FOR REVIEW JURISDICTION TO REVIEW MERITS OF PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME DETERMINATION FOR PURPOSES OF ASYLUM
Delgado v. Holder, 563 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2009) (superseding earlier opinion, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. October 8, 2008) (court of appeal has jurisdiction to review the merits of a "particularly serious crime" determination for purposes of asylum, because this question is specifically exempted from the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)), following Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F .3d 972, 980 (9th Cir. 2007).

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - DEFINITION OF PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Delgado v. Holder, 563 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2009) (superseding earlier opinion, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. October 8, 2008) ("Although the Convention did not define "particularly serious crime," it did create another exception for aliens who had committed a "serious nonpolitical crime" outside of the country of refuge. Convention, art. 1.F.b. As the BIA has stated, "it should be clear that a particularly serious crime is not the equivalent of a serious nonpolitical crime . Further, a particularly serious crime is more serious than a serious nonpolitical crime...." Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. at 247. With reference to a "serious nonpolitical crime," the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status states that "a serious' crime must be a capital crime or a very grave punishable act." Handbook, 155, HCR/IP/4/ENG/REV.1 (Jan.1992).").

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - CONVICTION OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE IS NOT A PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME FOR PURPOSES OF ASYLUM
Delgado v. Holder, 563 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2009) (superseding earlier opinion, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. October 8, 2008) (three convictions for felony DUI, one of which involved an injury accident, and two of which resulted in prison terms of less than five years each, did not constitute particularly serious crimes for purposes of barring asylum: it was an abuse of discretion to hold otherwise, because "they do not exceed the 'capital or grave' standard of 'serious' nonpolitical crimes, and Frentescu indicates that particularly serious crimes should exceed that standard.").

ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY
Anaya-Ortiz v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2009) ("The BIA's approach to determining whether a crime is particularly serious has evolved since Matter of Frentescu. Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 342. As Matter of N-A-M-, explains, once an alien is found to have committed a particularly serious crime, we no longer engage in a separate determination to address whether the alien is a danger to the community. Id. Thus, [o]nce the INS makes a finding that an offense constitutes a particularly serious crime, a separate determination of danger to the community is not required. Kankamalage v. INS, 335 F.3d 858, 861 n. 2 (9th Cir.2003). This revised approach is contained in the current BIA regulations, which provide that an alien who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime shall be considered to constitute a danger to the community. 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(d)(2); see also Matter of Carballe, 19 I. & N. Dec. 357, 360 (BIA 1986) (explaining that a separate determination of dangerousness focusing on the likelihood of future serious misconduct on the part of the alien is not required by the statute because, when determining whether a conviction is for [a particularly serious] crime, the essential key is whether the nature of the crime is one which indicates that the alien poses a danger to the community).

RELIEF " POLITICAL ASYLUM
Valencia v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2008) (Immigration Judge has no duty to inform a respondent of his right to apply for asylum, withholding of removal or relief under the convention against torture unless the respondent specifically and affirmatively expresses a fear of return to his country of origin).

RELIEF - POLITICAL ASYLUM - WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL --PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - ENUMERATING OF AGGRAVATED FELONIES AS PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIMES DOES NOT PRECLUDE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM IDENTIFYING OTHERS


Delgado v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) (Congress' statutory designation of certain aggravated felonies as per se "particularly serious" crimes did not preclude the Attorney General from deciding, on a case-by-case basis, that any other crime was also "particularly serious" so as to render noncitizen ineligible for withholding of removal).

NOTE: Judge Berzon wrote a lengthy and well-reasoned dissent, in which she reasons:

First and most important, neither of the majority's two holdings concerning the "particularly serious crime" provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(B) and 1231(b)(3)(B) can be reconciled with the most basic principles of statutory interpretation. The majority concludes that the "particularly serious crime" exclusions for asylum and withholding of removal mean nearly the same thing, substantively and procedurally, even though the language, structure, purpose, and context of the two sections are all quite different. That simply cannot be. For the reasons I discuss below, the only viable construction of the "particularly serious crime" provision of 1231(b)(3)(B), the withholding version, is that only aggravated felonies can be "particularly serious crime[s]." And the only viable interpretation of the asylum "particularly serious crime" provision, 1158(b)(2)(B), is that the Attorney General can make non-aggravated felonies "particularly serious crimes" only through regulation, not on a case-by-case basis.

Second, as to the jurisdictional issues, the majority's conclusion that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) withdraws our jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA's") asylum decision is directly in conflict with Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2007). Morales held that asylum issues generally are reviewable, even when committed to the Attorney General's discretion, because of an express statutory provision pertaining only to asylum decisions. The majority holds the opposite. Moreover, the majority does not recognize that some of the specific claims Delgado seeks to raise regarding the determination that his convictions constitute a "particularly serious crime" are, substantively and procedurally, "legal questions related to th[is] determination," Id. at 980. Because they are, we have jurisdiction to decide them even with regard to withholding of removal. Id.

Third, the majority properly relies on Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.2001), to hold that the BIA's determination that a crime is "particularly serious" for withholding purposes is discretionary and so not reviewable. But Matsuk rests on faulty premises, recently rejected by the Second and Third Circuits in convincing opinions. In my view, Matsuk should be reconsidered by this Court sitting en banc.

These issues may therefore be reconsidered en banc by the Ninth Circuit.

RELIEF - ASYLUM - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - CIRCUIT SPLIT - JURISDICTION TO REVIEW WHETHER OFFENSE CONSTITUTES PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Delgado v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2008) (court of appeal lacked jurisdiction to review BIA determination whether particular offense constituted "particularly serious crime"), following Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001) (particularly serious crime determination by BIA is discretionary, with no governing statutory standards, and so unreviewable by court of appeals); Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462, 468 (7th Cir. 2006), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 29, 168 L.Ed.2d 806, cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 828, 169 L.Ed.2d 624 (2007) (same); Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547, 549 (7th Cir. 2006) (same); Matter of NAM, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336 (BIA 2007); contra, Alaka v. Attorney General of U.S., 456 F.3d 88, 94-101 (3d Cir. July 18, 2006); Nethagani v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 150, 154 (2d Cir. 2008).

Tenth Circuit

RELIEF - WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
N-A-M v. Holder, 587 F.3d 1052 (10th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009) (Colorado conviction of felony menacing, in violation of Colo.Rev.Stat. 18-3-206(1)(a), (b), may constitute a particularly serious crime, for purposes of barring withholding, even though it is not an aggravated felony), disagreeing with Alaka v. Atty. Gen'l of the U.S., 456 F.3d 88, 104 (3d Cir.2006) ("The plain language and structure (i.e., context) of the statute indicate that an offense must be an aggravated felony to be sufficiently serious.").

RELIEF -WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME - SEPARATE DETERMINATION OF DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY NOT REQUIRED
N-A-M v. Holder, 587 F.3d 1052, 1057 (10th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009) ("Section 1231(b)(3)(b)(ii) empowers the Attorney General to deny withholding to alien petitioners upon a determination that the petitioner "having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime is a danger to the community of the United States." The BIA construes this provision as requiring only an inquiry into whether the alien has committed a particularly serious crime. "[O]nce an alien is found to have committed a particularly serious crime, we no longer engage in a separate determination to address whether an alien is a danger to the community." 24 I. & N. Dec. at 342." This is a reasonable interpretation of the statute).

Eleventh Circuit

RELIEF " ASYLUM " INA 209(c) WAIVER " VIOLENT OR DANGEROUS CRIME RELIEF " INA 212(h) WAIVER " VIOLENT OR DANGEROUS
Makir-Marwil v. Atty' Gen., 681 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. May 22, 2012) (Matter of Jean standard for "violent or dangerous" crimes may be determined by either a categorical or factual analysis of the offense; IJ and BIA erred in failing to consider individual hardship, including country conditions, in determining that applicant would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship).

Other

RELIEF - ASYLUM - POST CON RELIEF - REHABILITATIVE RELIEF MAY BE EFFECTIVE TO ELIMINATE A CONVICTION FOR PURPOSES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF - ASYLUM OR WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL
Argument: An expungement or other rehabilitative relief should be effective to eliminate any conviction for purposes of eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal, because these statutes use the term "judgment of conviction" rather than "conviction." Since INA 101(a)(48)(A) merely defines "conviction," and discusses when a disposition that is not a judgment of conviction will constitute a "conviction" for immigration law, it arguably do not define what constitutes a "judgment of conviction" and 101(a)(48)(A) does not control in asylum and withholding context. Therefore, Matter of Roldan and subsequent cases holding that rehabilitative relief does not eliminate a conviction do not apply in this context. Thanks to Manny Vargas. Immigration counsel can also argue that post-conviction relief effectively eliminates the conviction. Thanks to Katherine Brady.