CHICAGO
ORAL ARGUMENT CASES
June
16, 2000
[Click here for text of letter
from Paul Schmidt]
I. The first case involves an
ethnic Albanian from Serbia-Montenegro who entered the United
States as a refugee when he was a child, and later committed
crimes here. The Immigration Judge found the respondent
ineligible for withholding of removal, but granted deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture. This case involves
cross-appeals.
Issues:
1. Is the respondent’s 1974
youthful offender “adjudication” under New York law
a conviction for immigration purposes?
2. If so, is it a “particularly
serious crime”?
3. Did the Immigration Judge err
in granting deferral of removal?
Hearing City: New York, New York
II. The second case involves an
alien who entered the United States in 1984 as a six-year-old
derivative refugee from Cambodia. In December 1997, he was
convicted of burglary of a vehicle, under section 459 of the
California Penal Code. He received a 16 month sentence.
Issues:
1. Is the respondent’s
conviction a “particularly serious crime” for
withholding of removal purposes?
2. Has the respondent met his
burden of establishing a well-founded fear of persecution in
Cambodia, or likelihood of torture under the Convention
Against Torture?
Hearing City: San Diego, California
III. The third case involves an
alien who was charged with homicide in Uzbekistan. The
Immigration Judge found that there were serious reasons to
believe he had committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the
United States and was therefore ineligible for withholding of
removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration
Judge granted deferral of removal, noting that the evidence of
record indicated that torture is sometimes used in Uzbekistan to
extract confessions. The respondent denies any criminal activity
in his homeland. This case involves cross appeals.
Issues:
1. Are the statements of
prosecutors in Uzbekistan, the warrant of arrest, and an
Interpol alert based on the warrant sufficient evidence to
show that there are serious reasons to believe the respondent
committed a serious nonpolitical crime, and thus is
ineligible for withholding of removal?
2. Is the evidence regarding
torture being used to extract confessions enough to grant
deferral of removal?
3. Did the Immigration Judge
unfairly limit the presentation of evidence at the reopened
Convention Against Torture hearing?
Hearing City: Newark, New Jersey
U.S. Department of
Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2400
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
|
Dear Immigration Law Practitioner:
A panel of three members of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) will hear oral arguments
in three pending appellate cases in the Parsons Memorial
Courtroom at the District Court, 219 South Dearborn, 25th Floor,
in Chicago on June 16, 2000. The oral arguments are scheduled for
9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m.
This is the Board’s second visit to
Chicago to hear oral arguments. Another panel heard oral
arguments at the Chicago Immigration Court in April 1999. That
same year, the Board also traveled to Miami, Florida, and in
1998, they heard oral arguments in Los Angeles, California, and
San Antonio, Texas. These oral arguments are scheduled as part of
an on-going initiative to make the immigration appeals process
more accessible to parties in other parts of the country. It is
part of a larger outreach effort by the Executive Office for
Immigration Review to improve customer service overall.
Enclosed is the schedule and case summaries
of the three cases to be heard. We understand that your schedule
may not permit you to attend the arguments. However, to the
extent that your schedule permits, we look forward to seeing you
at the oral arguments.
Sincerely,
Paul W. Schmidt
Chairman