A judge from the Ninth Circuit court suggested some people leverage a legal precedent that extends asylum seekers’ time in the U.S. This statement followed a divided panel decision to deny an asylum bid. The 20-year precedent, per the judge, allows and even encourages asylum seekers to raise new arguments in circuit courts rather than through the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The precedent, the 2005 Ninth Circuit decision in Abebe v. Gonzales, unintentionally gave asylum seekers a reason to avoid pointing out errors in an immigration judge’s ruling when appealing to the BIA. Instead, they wait to bring those issues up later, in the circuit court, after the BIA has already approved the judge’s decision. Per the judge, the only thing asylum seekers need to do to stay in the country longer is to remain quiet.
If the petitioner holds back calling out a procedural flaw in the BIA decision until the circuit court reviews the matter, and the matter is sent back to the BIA, this not only gives the individual more time in the country but time to see how their legal challenges play out. This practice effectively gives asylum seekers the ability to remain in the U.S. through legal loopholes.
If you have questions about any U.S. immigration related issue, whether family-based or employment-based, contact us at ILBSG. Our clients work directly with attorneys to ensure they get the right advice for their particular situations.
