Search cases
Compare defaults:
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52
vs
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med
Results
Showing 6001–6025 of 7923 (page 241 / 317)
FEB172022_01A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, was granted U nonimmigrant status in October 2014, and he filed the instant U adjustment application in November 2017. The issue on motion is whether the Applicant's continued presence in the United States is justified on humanitarian grounds, to ensure family unity, or is otherwise in the public interest such…
FEB172022_01B7203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
The Petitioner indicates he invested $500,000 in __________ the NCE, which provides freight forwarding, logistics, and transportation services, and is located in South Carolina. According to the submitted business plan, the NCE plans to hire employees for the daily operation of theNCE. The Petitioner in this case did not submit an adequate appeal for review…
FEB172022_01D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner filed her U petition inl I 2016 with a Supplement B signed and certified by the Sergeant - Records Division of Police for thel I Police Department inl I Illinois ( certifying official). The certifying official indicated that the Petitioner was the victim of criminal activity involving "Other: Armed Rob…
FEB172022_01H2212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). The filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the Director's denial of the petition. Instead, it is a motion to reconsider our decision dismissing the appeal. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismi…
FEB172022_01H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). The filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the Director's denial of the petition. Instead, it is a motion to reconsider our decision dismissing the appeal. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismi…
FEB172022_01H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
By regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.S(a)(l)(i). The filing before us is not a motion to reconsider the Director's denial of the petition. Instead, it is a motion to reconsider our decision dismissing the appeal. In other words, we examine any new arguments to the extent that they pertain to our prior dismi…
FEB172022_02H5212
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
The record indicates the Applicant filed his Form 1-485 on February 13, 2017. USCIS interviewed the Applicant on September 10, 2019, confronting the Applicant with derogatory information alleging he had provided a fraudulent affidavit to USCIS officers in the past as part of his Form 1-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, submission…
FEB172022_02H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
The Applicant does not contest the finding of inadmissibility for unlawful presence, a determination supported by the record. The issue on appeal is whether the Applicant's qualifying relative would experience extreme hardship if the waiver is denied. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: 1) if the qualifying relative remains in the Unite…
FEB172022_03H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 17, 2022
—
On appeal, the Applicant does not contest the finding of inadmissibility, which is supported by the record. 2 Thus, the Applicant must establish that denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or qualifying relatives, in this case her U.S. citizen spouse. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: 1) if the…
FEB162022_01B2203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Petitioner has been working as an actress, primarily in theater productions but also in film, for more than a decade. She earned a Bachelor of Performing Arts from the I I Universitvl in 2010, and completed coursework towards a Bachelor of Fine Arts from I I University. The record includes a job offer letter from a company m Massachusetts to work as a m…
FEB162022_01B9204
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, married her U.S. citizen spouse, K-D-R-, 1 in ___ 2016, while the Petitioner was in removal proceedings. The Petitioner filed her VA WA petition in April 2018. The Director denied the petition, concluding the Petitioner had not met her burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that she entered in…
FEB162022_01C6101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History Inl 2016, when the Petitioner was 20 years old, thel I Family Court in New York issued an order appointing the Petitioner's uncle as his guardian in guardianship proceedings brought under section 661 of the New York Family Court Act (N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act) and section 1707 of the New York Surrogate's Court Procedure Act…
FEB162022_01D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Petitioner filed her U petition on April 30, 2012, and it was approved from May 22, 2013, until May 21, 2017. On May 6, 2019, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) approval of the U petition. In the NOIR, the Director stated that the U petition was approved in error as the Petitioner was not the victim of qualifying criminal activity.…
FEB162022_01D7101
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Director denied the petition after issuing a notice of intent to deny (NOID). The Director noted that the initial blanket approval was pending revocation at the time the NOID was issued and emphasized that the Petitioner's response to the NOID did not include "evidence which demonstrates that your initial blanket petition has had its approval reaffirmed…
FEB162022_01G1103
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
A. The Co-Obligor Received Notice of the Time and Place to Deliver the Foreign National
The first issue on appeal is whether the Obligor received notice of when and where to deliver the bonded foreign national. The ICE Field Office determined that the Obligor breached a delivery bond, as the foreign national was not delivered upon request. The regulation a…
FEB162022_01H2212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The record reflects that courts in Albania convicted the Applicant for three offenses: 2005 threat and vigilantism and 2011 identity fraud. In addition, a court in the United Kingdom convicted the Applicant in 2013 for possession/control identity documents with intent. The courts sentenced the Applicant to two months imprisonment for the first two offenses,…
FEB162022_01H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The issue on appeal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that her fiance would suffer extreme hardship upon denial of the waiver. Upon review, we conclude that the Applicant has not established extreme hardship to her fiance.
A. Inadmissibility
However, prior to discussing the extreme hardship issue, we will briefly discuss marital status documents th…
FEB162022_02A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Applicant, a citizen of Mexico, was the beneficiary of a Form 1-918, Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Recipient, which was approved in February 2016. The Applicant was granted U-3 nonimmigrant status as the child of a U-1 recipient until January 2020. The Applicant filed the instant U adjustment application in January 2020. T…
FEB162022_02B2203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
Because the Petitioner has not indicated or demonstrated that he has received a major, internationally recognized award at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3), he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner fulfilled the leading or critical role cr…
FEB162022_02D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, filed her U petition in March 2011. In November 2011, her U petition was approved. In October 2016, the Director issued a notice of intent to revoke (NOIR) the approval as having been issued in error, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(h)(2)(i)(B). The NOIR recounted relevant portions…
FEB162022_02E2309
Accepted
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The record reflects that the Applicant satisfied several of the conditions in section 320 of the Act as in effect on February 27, 2001. Specifically, at that time the Applicant had at least one U.S. citizen adoptive parent, was under 18 years of age, and was a lawful permanent resident of the United States. The remaining issue, therefore, is whether the App…
FEB162022_02H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
In our decision dismissing the Applicant's appeal, we found that the Applicant did not provide a valid signature on the prior Form I-290B, as the signature appears to have been copied and pasted from a form other than the submitted Form I-290B. As a result, we were unable to recognize the appeal as properly filed and dismissed on this ground. On motion, the…
FEB162022_03A6245
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in March 2005. The Applicant was granted U nonimmigrant status from October 2013 until October 2017, and her U nonimmigrant status was subsequently extended through the filing and approval of a Form 1-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, until Feb…
FEB162022_03E2309
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 16, 2022
—
The Applicant has satisfied several of the above conditions-she is currently under the age of 18 years, has a U.S. citizen father, and is a lawful permanent resident. The issue on appeal is whether the Applicant has established that she was residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of her father when her father naturalized in August 20…
FEB152022_01B2203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 15, 2022
—
A. Evidentiary Criteria
Because the Petitioner has not claimed or established that the Beneficiary has received a major, internationally recognized award, the Beneficiary must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). The Director determined that the Petitioner met four of the claimed evidentiary criteria…