By Alex SheppardOn October 28, 2015, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decided the companion cases Matter of Garcia-Ramirez, 26 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 2015), and Matter of Castrejon-Colino, 26 I&N Dec. 667 (BIA 2015), both of which addressed the burden of proof that rests on cancellation of removal applicants who are demonstrating continuous physical presence, a requirement for non-lawful permanent residents seeking this form of relief from removal. In the decisions, the BIA held that “[W]here an alien had the right to appear before an Immigration Judge, evidence that photographs and fingerprints were taken in conjunction with a voluntary departure or return is insufficient to break the alien’s continuous physical presence in the absence of evidence that he or she was informed of and waived the right to a hearing, regardless of whether the encounter occurred at or near the border.”

This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States.____________________INA § 240A(b)(1)(A)Matter of Garcia-Ramirez, 26 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 2015)Matter of Castrejon-Colino, 26 I&N Dec. 667 (BIA 2015)Matter of Avilez, 23 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 2005)Citing Matter of Castrejoin-ColinoLawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com

This steadfast dedication has resulted in thousands of immigrants throughout the United States._____________________Matter of Castrejon-Colino, 26 I&N Dec. 667 (BIA 2015)Matter of Garcia-Ramirez, 26 I&N Dec. 674 (BIA 2015)Matter of Avilez, 23 I&N Dec. 799 (BIA 2005)Matter of Romalez, 23 I&N Dec. 423 (BIA 2002);Citing e.g. Reyes-Sanchez v. Holder, 646 F.3d 493, 498 (7th Cir. 2011)Valadez-Munoz v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1304, 1311 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Tapia v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 2005)Citing Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder, 717 F.3d 269, 279-80 (2d Cir. 2013)Lawyer website: http://myattorneyusa.com