Unpublished BIA Decisions

As a public service, IRAC collects and posts noteworthy unpublished decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals. By making these decisions available to the immigration community, IRAC hopes to promote consistency in decision-making and to benefit attorneys with similar cases. A sample of recently posted decisions is below. If you have an unpublished decision you would like us to post, please email Ben Winograd.

Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions


IRAC also publishes an Index containing links and summaries to hundreds of unpublished decisions selected for their potential to assist respondents in removal proceedings. The Index is organized by subject matter and updated on a monthly basis. Click this link to preview and purchase the Index of Unpublished Decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
So Ann Taneisha Morgan, A099 166 966 (BIA Apr. 3, 2014)

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld a finding that the respondent was ineligible to adjust status under INA 245(i) because she entered on fraudulent passport and had no qualifying relative to apply for a waiver under INA 212(i). The Board remanded the record, however, because the immigration judge failed to consider the respondent’s application for voluntary departure. The decision was written by Member Anne Greer.

Santino Fabian Alarcon-Gomez, A201 227 554 (BIA Apr. 2, 2014)

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld an order terminating proceedings upon finding bulk cash smuggling under 31 U.S.C. 5332(a) is not a crime involving moral turpitude because it is a "reporting offense" and does not require proof that concealed currency was proceeds of criminal activity. The Board also stated that it could not progress beyond the first step of Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008), because it found the offense did not include the required element of moral turpitude. The decision was written by Member Hugh Mullane and joined by Member Michael Creppy and Member Ana Mann.

Luis Miguel Ramirez-Moz, A072 377 892 (BIA Mar. 31, 2014)

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that grand larceny under Va. Code Ann. 18.2-95 is not a categorical theft-related aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(G) because the statute can be applied to fraud offenses. The Board also stated that the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013), overruled Matter of Lanferman, 25 I&N Dec. 721 (BIA 2012), on whether a criminal statute is divisible. The Board concluded, however, that Va. Code Ann. 18.2-95 is divisible under Descamps and that the conviction record demonstrated that the respondent committed a theft- rather than fraud-related offense. The decision was written by Member Patricia Cole.

Eduardo Gomez Juardo, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed a DHS appeal and upheld the termination of proceedings upon finding that assault on a female under N.C. Stat. 14-33(c)(2) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor a crime of domestic violence under the categorical approach, and that the statue was not divisible under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). The Board also stated the cyberstalking under N.C. Stat. 14-196.3 is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

Myoung Sook Lee, A098 772 839 (BIA Mar. 27, 2014)

In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sustained the respondents’ appeal and remanded for further consideration of their applications for adjustment of status upon finding they had not failed to continuously maintain lawful status for more than 180 days. The Board stated that under 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(5)(ii), an applicant who renews an adjustment application in removal proceedings need not meet the lawful status requirement of INA 245(c) if the requirement was met when the application was originally filed with USCIS. The Board also stated that the application should not be treated as new, rather than renewed, merely because the lead respondent was no longer inadmissible under INA 212(a). The decision was written by Member Teresa Donovan and joined by Member Roger Pauley and Member Linda Wendtland.