Search cases
Compare defaults:
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52
vs
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med
Results
Showing 6076–6100 of 7923 (page 244 / 317)
FEB092022_01B9204
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
In this case, the Petitioner filed his VA WA petition in April of 2018, including several letters that described him as a hard worker, good father, and great friend. The Director issued a request for evidence (RFE), seeking, among other things, additional documentation to establish the Petitioner's good moral character. The Director specified that a crimina…
FEB092022_01D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, filed his U petition in October 2015 as a victim of felonious assault based on an incident in I 2013. With his U petition, the Petitioner submitted a Supplement B signed in September 2015 by the Chief of Police ( certifying official) in the I I Pennsylvania Police Department ( cer…
FEB092022_01E2309
Accepted
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
As stated, there is no dispute that the Applicant's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the Applicant's birth, and that the Applicant was born in wedlock. The issues on appeal are: (1) whether the Applicant has established that her father was also a U.S. citizen, and if so (2) whether her parents satisfied the residence condition for the Applicant to a…
FEB092022_01H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The issues on appeal are whether the Applicant is inadmissible for willful misrepresentation and whether she has demonstrated her U.S. citizen spouse would suffer extreme hardship upon denial of the waiver.
A. Inadmissibility
The Applicant contends she is not inadmissible because she did not willfully misrepresent a material fact. The Applicant was found i…
FEB092022_01H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Applicant does not dispute that she is inadmissible for unlawful presence. She entered the United States without inspection in 2000, and remained, with no lawful status, until 2019. When she applied for an immigrant visa at the U.S. Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, DOS determined that she is also inadmissible for a CIMT conviction. Specifically, inc=…
FEB092022_01M1244
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
As an initial matter, we note that that the Director denied TPS solely on criminal grounds and did not make any findings concerning the Applicant's inadmissibility. Rather, the record reflects that the Applicant filed his Form 1-601 indicating that he was inadmissible to the United States because he had a "conviction for under the influence of a controlled…
FEB092022_02A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Turkey, was granted derivative U nonimmigrant status in October 2014. He filed the instant U adjustment application in July 2018. In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined that the Applicant had not established that his continued presence in the United States was justified on humanitarian gro…
FEB092022_02B9204
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
In the Petitioner's initial declaration, he stated he met his spouse, E-T-, 1 in 1997, describing that they had been in a romantic relationship and had continued to be in contact every day even after she moved 1 We use initials to protect the identities of the individuals in this case.
to the United States in 2010. He stated that in 201 7, he entered the U…
FEB092022_02D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Petitioner filed the instant U petition in September 2015 with a Supplement B certified by the Supervising Assistant State's Attorney for Connecticut's State Attorney Office. In Part 3.1 of the Supplement B, for criminal acts, the certifying official checked the box for felonious assault and other"robbery." In Part 3.3, when prompted to provide the spec…
FEB092022_02H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
In our November 2021 decision, we agreed with the Director that the Applicant had not demonstrated that his U.S. citizen spouse would experience extreme hardship if his waiver were denied. We noted that the Director's decision acknowledged both the "Psychological Evaluation" (evaluation) from a licensed marriage and family therapist and the diagnosis of adj…
FEB092022_03A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Turkey, was granted derivative U nonimmigrant status in October 2014. He filed the instant U adjustment application in July 2018. In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined that the Applicant had not established that his continued presence in the United States was justified on humanitarian gro…
FEB092022_03B9204
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Petitioner filed the instant VA WA petition in June 2019, submitting, in part, a copy of her marriage certificate, evidence she had sought a restraining order against her spouse, V-T-, 1 letters from friends, copies of photographs, a copy of a bill, a letter from a case worker, and tax documents. The Director issued a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) the…
FEB092022_04A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 09, 2022
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, was granted derivative U nonimmigrant status in October 2015. He filed the instant U adjustment application in January 2019. In our prior decision, incorporated here by reference, we determined that the Applicant had not established that his continued presence in the United States was justified on humanitarian…
FEB082022_01D12101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
As discussed in our decision on appeal, the Applicant last entered the United States without inspection, admission, or parole in 2008 and filed her T application in June 2018. The Director denied the T
application based on a determination that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the ev…
FEB082022_01D14101
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The record reflects that the Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without inspection in 2007. In 2009 the Petitioner was granted a Restraining Order to Prevent Abuse against her spouse under the Oregon Family Abuse Prevention Act (FAPA) and in 2012 she was granted a second restra…
FEB082022_01H2212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
As explained in the Director's decision, the Applicant was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on June 21, 1986. On 11999, he was convicted of a crime of moral turpitude ( other than a purely political offense) by the New Jersey Superior Court atl in violation ofN.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:24-4. On 2004, the Applicant was ordered removed a…
FEB082022_01H5212
Accepted
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
The record reflects that, on September 16, 1995, the Applicant attempted to enter the United States by presenting a valid Texas birth certificate belonging to another individual to an immigration officer at the port of entry. After making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, the Applicant was ordered excluded and deported from the United States by an Immigrat…
FEB082022_01H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
A. Motion to Reconsider On motion, the Applicant requests we reconsider our previous decision. However, the Applicant has not cited any law or policy that would indicate that our previous decision was based on an incorrect application oflaw or policy and so has not met the requirements for a motion to reconsider and argues the decision contained erroneous c…
FEB082022_02D12101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
The Applicant is a citizen of Colombia who last entered the United States in 2015 when she was admitted on a nonimmigrant visitor's visa and has not left since. She filed her T application in November 2019 on the basis that she was transported, recruited, and obtained through fraud and coercion for the purpose of involuntary servitude by the individual who…
FEB082022_02D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner filed his U petition with a Supplement B signed and certified by a captain with the I !Alabama, Police Department (certifying official), based upon a 2015 incident whereby he was working at a gas station and a man pointed a gun and yelled at the Petitioner when he asked the man to move his vehicle. In…
FEB082022_02H2212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 e.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(i). As noted, a motion to reopen must state new facts, supported by documentary evidence. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(2). The issue before us is whether the Applicant has submitted new facts to warrant reopening or established that o…
FEB082022_02H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
The Applicant must demonstrate that denial of the application would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative or relatives, in this case her U.S. citizen spouse. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: 1) if the qualifying relative remains in the United States separated from the applicant and 2) if the qualifying relative relocate…
FEB082022_03D12101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 08, 2022
—
The Applicant acknowledges and the record demonstrates that her combined motions before us were untimely filed. We dismissed the Applicant's appeal of the Director's decision on her T application on December 22, 2020. The Applicant subsequently attempted to file her combined motions directly with the AAO 58 days later on Feb. 18, 2021, contrary to the instr…
FEB072022_01A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 07, 2022
—
The Applicant was granted U-1 status in October 2014 through September 2018. In September 2018, she filed the instant U adjustment application. The Director subsequently denied this U adjustment application, concluding that the Applicant's positive and mitigating equities were outweighed by the adverse factor of her criminal history such that a favorable ex…
FEB072022_01B5203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Feb 07, 2022
—
The record indicates that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The remaining issue to be determined is whether the Petitioner has established that a waiver of the requirement of a job offer, and thus a labor certification, would be in the national interest. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the…