tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399750140932278409.post236543265871336341..comments2024-01-02T04:16:32.146-08:00Comments on The Insightful Immigration Blog – Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends: MATTER OF DOUGLAS: THE BIA CONFIRMS THAT BRAND X CAN SOMETIMES BE A FORCE FOR GOOD Cyrus D. Mehta & Associates, PLLChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02968992345997982326noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399750140932278409.post-83250320554267413352013-10-24T08:39:54.683-07:002013-10-24T08:39:54.683-07:00Russell,
With respect to your first point, I thin...Russell,<br /><br />With respect to your first point, I think the BIA is not gaining much additional ground by having one instance of exercise of the power that will not undergo further appeals, when there are already multiple cases in the pipeline that could be further appealed. Just in the examples I had cited in the post, the respondent in Matter of M-H- may already have petitioned for review to the 3rd Circuit, or the respondent in Cortes-Medina to the 9th. It's not as though the BIA started by making an unappealable favorable ruling and gave the principle time to become established in the case law before using it to make unfavorable rulings.<br /><br />Your point about "when" vis-a-vis Matter of Rojas is definitely an interesting one, though. Perhaps Matter of Douglas will be cited by the government in some future case to support Matter of Rojas-- I guess we'll see.<br /><br />DavidDavid A. Isaacsonhttp://cyrusmehta.com/Sub.aspx?MainIdx=ocyrus200591701543&SubIdx=ocyrus200835122922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2399750140932278409.post-9606873534784988382013-10-24T08:26:29.648-07:002013-10-24T08:26:29.648-07:00The outcome for Douglas was great. But I see two ...The outcome for Douglas was great. But I see two potential problems for everyone else in the long run. First, the BIA picked a case where there would be no further appeals to use its power to reject contrary circuit court law. This decision is a precedent that can be used when the BIA wants to reject circuit court law that is favorable to the noncitizen.<br /><br />Second, the BIA found that statute ambiguous because it found that "when" is ambiguous. This is the issue in the Matter of Rojas litigation - is "when released" ambiguous. Now the BIA says that "when" is an ambiguous term and there will be no challenge to that term in the Douglas case. This will carry over to the Rojas litigation.Russell Abrutynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10033604390535314253noreply@blogger.com