In the Matter of Rahman

17 Citing cases

  1. Singh v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 22-11735 (11th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023)

    In determining whether good cause exists to grant a change of venue, an IJ considers such factors as, among others, administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, and the costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. &N. Dec. 480, 483 (B.I.A. 1992).

  2. Escalona-Escalona v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    No. 20-14061 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2022)

    Matter of Velasquez, 19 I. &N. Dec. 377, 382-83 (BIA 1986); see also Matter of Rahman, 20 I. &N. Dec. 480, 483 (BIA 1992) (enumerating the same factors).

  3. Matumona v. Barr

    945 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2019)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that past persecution establishes a presumption of future persecution for purposes of withholding of removal

    However, this authority exists only to the extent that it is encompassed by our appellate jurisdiction." Matter of Hernandez-Puente , 20 I. & N. Dec. 335, 339 (BIA 1991) ; see Matter of Rahman , 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 484 n.4 (BIA 1992) (concerns regarding place of detention are outside IJ and BIA authority). III.

  4. Gafurova v. Sessions

    Case No. 16-4688 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that "[a]n alien must establish both error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process challenge to immigration proceedings," and "[s]ubstantial prejudice requires a showing the alleged violation affected the outcome of the proceeding" (quotation marks, editorial marks, and citations omitted)

    "In determining whether good cause to change venue exists, an immigration judge should consider all relevant factors including administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location." See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 483 (BIA 1992). In this case, the IJ determined that Gafurova failed to show "good cause" for a change of venue.

  5. Zampaligidi-Jebreel v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

    539 F. App'x 969 (11th Cir. 2013)

    Good cause is determined by balancing certain relevant factors, including administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and the cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992) (citations omitted). Zampaligidi-Jebreel has failed to show that any of the IJ's purported procedural errors deprived him of the right to a fair and impartial hearing.

  6. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder

    657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that BIA erred in not permitting alien to withdraw attorney's admission where such admission was made without any factual basis and constituted deficient performance

    In considering a motion to change venue, IJs determine whether good cause exists by “balancing the factors ... relevant to the venue issue,” including “administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location.” Matter of Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480, 482 (BIA 1992) (citation omitted). But that is not the end of our inquiry, for Velasquez sets forth three types of “egregious circumstances” that, if present, justify relieving an alien of his attorney's admissions, even when those admissions meet the previously-discussed criteria.

  7. Lumaj v. Holder

    388 F. App'x 469 (6th Cir. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    Good cause is determined by balancing a number of factors, including administrative convenience, the expeditious treatment of the case, the location of the witnesses, and the costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I N Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992). The IJ and BIA held that administrative convenience favored keeping the proceeding in Detroit.

  8. Robledo-Amaya v. Holder

    354 F. App'x 167 (5th Cir. 2009)

    "Good cause is determined by balancing the factors . . . relevant to the venue issue." Matter of Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480, 482-83 (BIA 1992). Such factors include administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, and costs of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location.

  9. Serrano-Portillo v. Keisler

    249 F. App'x 344 (5th Cir. 2007)

    See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b); In re Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480, 483-84 (BIA 1992). Additionally, the petitioners' argument regarding changed country circumstances is raised before this court for the first time in their reply brief.

  10. Frech v. U.S.

    491 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007)   Cited 50 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding to prevail on a due process challenge, the petitioner must show he was substantially prejudiced by the violation

    The IJ made no mention of the factors he was required to balance under BIA precedent for a change of venue determination, such as administrative convenience, expeditious treatment of the case, location of witnesses, cost of transporting witnesses or evidence to a new location, and prejudice to the INS. See Matter of Rahman, 20 I. N. Dec. 480 (BIA 1992). In 2004, Frech again requested a change in venue, this time through counsel he had obtained in Houston.