§
Matter of Koljenovic

3 Analyses of this admin-law by attorneys

  1. BIA: Adjustment of Status is admission for purposes of § 212(h) waiver

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawMay 4, 2010

    In a recent decision, the BIA held that a person whose status is adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident has been “admitted” on the date of adjustment for purposes of an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility. Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219 (BIA 2010) (Grant, Malphrus, and Mullane). Board Member Mullane wrote the panel’s decision.

  2. 10 Cir: Clarifies choice of law and 212(h) eligibility

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawMarch 3, 2015

    Id. at 9.[1]See Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784, 789 (BIA BIA 2012); see also Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2010) (adopting similar conclusion regarding seven-year continuous residence requirement); Matter of Paek, 26 I&N Dec. 403, 407 (BIA 2014) (same regarding admission as a “conditional permanent resident” under INA § 216(a)).[2]See Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2014).[3]SeeHusic v. Holder, No. 14607, 2015 WL 106359, at *7 (2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2015); Stanovsek v. Holder, 768 F.3d 515, 517-18 (6th Cir. 2014); Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2014); Papazoglou v. Holder, 725 F.3d 790, 794 (7th Cir. 2013); Leiba v. Holder, 699 F.3d 346, 356 (4th Cir. 2012); Lanier v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 631 F.3d 1363, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 2011); Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 546 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Hanif v. Attorney General of the U.S., 694 F.3d 479, 484 (3d Cir. 2012) (reaching identical holding regarding seven-year continuous residence requirement).

  3. 2 Cir: Broadens 212(h) eligibility; further isolates BIA & 8th Circuit

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawFebruary 17, 2015

    In doing so, the Second Circuit continued to leave the Eighth Circuit as an outlier. Perhaps this trend will encourage the Eighth Circuit to revisit its earlier position.[1]See Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784, 789 (BIA BIA 2012); see also Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I&N Dec. 219, 225 (BIA 2010) (adopting similar conclusion regarding seven-year continuous residence requirement); Matter of Paek, 26 I&N Dec. 403, 407 (BIA 2014) (same regarding admission as a “conditional permanent resident” under INA § 216(a)).[2]See Roberts v. Holder, 745 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2014).[3]See Stanovsek v. Holder, 768 F.3d 515, 517-18 (6th Cir. 2014); Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder, 741 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2014); Papazoglou v. Holder, 725 F.3d 790, 794 (7th Cir. 2013); Leiba v. Holder, 699 F.3d 346, 356 (4th Cir. 2012); Lanier v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 631 F.3d 1363, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 2011); Martinez v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 532, 546 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Hanif v. Attorney General of the U.S., 694 F.3d 479, 484 (3d Cir. 2012) (reaching identical holding regarding seven-year continuous residence requirement).