Search cases
Compare defaults:
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52
vs
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med
Results
Showing 6851–6875 of 7923 (page 275 / 317)
OCT292021_03D12101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 29, 2021
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Mexico, claims to have last entered the United States without being inspected, admitted, or paroled in June 2007. In August 20 l 7, the Applicant filed the instant T application, asserting that he was the victim oflabor trafficking by the individuals he paid to smuggle him into the United States. The Director denied th…
OCT292021_04H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 29, 2021
—
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 relocates overseas with the applicant. See 9 USCJS Policy Manual B.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy manual/volume-9-part-b-chapter-4 (providing, as guidance, the scenarios to…
OCT292021_06H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 29, 2021
—
As noted earlier, the Applicant, a native and citizen of Ecuador, does not contest her inadmissibility and asks that it be waived. Therefore, the issue on appeal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that her U.S. citizen spouse would experience extreme hardship upon denial of the waiver. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: I) if th…
OCT292021_07H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 29, 2021
—
The Applicant does not contest his inadmissibility, as described in the Director's decision, which we incorporate here. The Director determined that the Applicant's evidence of hardship to his spouse was not sufficient, individually or in the aggregate, to establish extreme hardship as defined above. The Applicant's qualifying relative provided a statement…
OCT282021_01A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant, a citizen of Mexico, was granted U nonimmigrant status in October 2015. The Applicant timely filed the instant U adjustment application in August 2019. The Director denied the application, determining that the Applicant had not demonstrated that his adjustment of status to that of an LPR was justified on humanitarian grounds, to ensurl family…
OCT282021_01B2203
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Petitioner is a medical consultant who previously served as the Director of the Department of Diabetes I I at the I I University'----~-~~----' Hospital in China. Because she has not indicated or established that she has received a major, internationally recognized award, the Petitioner must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory criteria at…
OCT282021_01C1101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
As a preliminary matter, we note that by regulation, the scope of a motion is limited to "the prior decision." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l )(i). The issue before us is whether the Petitioner has submitted new facts to warrant reopening or established that our decision to dismiss the appeal was based on an incorrect application oflaw or USCIS policy. A. Motion to…
OCT282021_01D14101
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner filed her U petition in December 2015 with a Supplement B signed and certified by the assistant chief of police in thel I Police Department inl I Arkansas ( certifying official). On part 3 .1 of the Supplement B, the certifying official checked a box indicating that the Petitioner was the victim of cri…
OCT282021_01H2212
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The issue is whether the Applicant has established eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to sections 212(h)(l)(A) or 212(h)(l)(B) of the Act and if so, whether a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. The Applicant does not contest the Director's determination that they are inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act.2 Th…
OCT282021_01H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The issue on appeal is whether Section 204(1) of the Act applies in this case. Specifically, under the Act, is the Applicant's U.S. citizen spouse's death treated as the functional equivalent of a finding of the requisite extreme hardship for waiver purposes, when the approved I-130 petition, under which the Applicant applied for an immigrant visa, was file…
OCT282021_01H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
We will dismiss the motions because they are untimely filed. Our appellate decision was issued on July 13, 2020. The Applicant filed his motions on October 19, 2020, over 90 days after we issued the adverse decision. While the Applicant claims on motion that the delay was due to his inability to obtain medical documents, he fails to submit evidence to subst…
OCT282021_02A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant, a citizen of Mexico, was granted U nonimmigrant status in October 2014. The Applicant timely filed the instant U adjustment application in September 2018. The Director denied the application, determining that the Applicant had not demonstrated that his adjustment of status to that of an LPR was justified on humanitarian grounds, to ensure fam…
OCT282021_02D14101
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The Petitioner filed his U petition in December 2015 with a Supplement B signed and certified by the Chief of Police of thel I Missouri Police Department ( certifying official). The certifying official checked a box indicating that the Petitioner was the victim of criminal activity involving or similar to "Felonious…
OCT282021_02H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
We will dismiss the motions because they are untimely filed. Our appellate decision was issued on July 13, 2020. The Applicant filed his motions on October 19, 2020, over 90 days after we issued the adverse decision. While the Applicant claims on motion that the delay was due to his inability to obtain medical documents, he fails to submit evidence to subst…
OCT282021_02H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The issues on motion are: (1) whether the Applicant is inadmissible for prior unlawful presence, and (2) whether he has established eligibility for exceptions or waivers of the applicable inadmissibility grounds.
A. Relevant Facts
The record reflects that the Applicant is a citizen of El Salvador, who initially entered the United States without being admit…
OCT282021_03A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in December 2000, and was the beneficiary of a Form 1-918, Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Recipient, which was approved in October 2014. The Applicant filed the instant U adjustment application in October 2017. The Director denied the application,…
OCT282021_03D14101
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
A. Relevant Facts and Procedural History In September 2015, the Petitioner filed his U petition with a Supplement B siJned and certified by a sergeant of the Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) in the I Police Department in I I Connecticut ( certifying official). The certifying official checked a box indicating that the Petitioner was the victim of cri…
OCT282021_03H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant does not dispute that she is inadmissible for willful misrepresentation of a material fact. The issue on appeal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that her qualifying relative, her U.S. citizen spouse, would experience extreme hardship upon denial of the waiver. An applicant may show extreme hardship in two scenarios: 1) if the qualifyi…
OCT282021_04A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant is a 26-year old citizen of Ecuador who last entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole in 2010. In July 2012, the Applicant's mother filed a Form 1-918 Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient ( derivative U petition), on his behalf: and the Applicant filed a Form 1-192, Application for Ad…
OCT282021_04H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant was found inadmissible for willful misrepresentation of a material fact. She disputes that the misrepresentation was willful, and she seeks a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility. The other issue on appeal is whether the Applicant has demonstrated that her qualifying relative, her U.S. citizen mother, would experience extreme hardship upon…
OCT282021_05A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 28, 2021
—
The Applicant, a native and citizen of Colombia, was the victim of domestic violence and assisted law enforcement in the investigation of the offense. The Director approved the Applicant's petition for U nonimmigrant status on this basis in December 2013. The Applicant filed the instant U adjustment application in December 201 7. The issue on motion is whet…
OCT272021_01A6245
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 27, 2021
—
The Applicant is a citizen of the Dominican Republic, who claims to have entered the United States without inspection and admission or parole in 1997. The Applicant testified that in order to work and avoid immigration consequences of being in the United States illegally, in 2002 he bought a U.S. birth certificate and social security card from another indiv…
OCT272021_01H2212
Remanded
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 27, 2021
—
The Applicant does not contest his inadmissibility on appeal. Nor does the Applicant challenge the Director's determination that he had not established extreme hardship to his son in the event of their separation. Therefore, the issue contested on appeal is whether the Applicant has established his eligibility to apply for a waiver under section 212(h)(l)(A…
OCT272021_01H5212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 27, 2021
—
The record clearly establishes the Applicant's placement in removal proceedings. Government records show that U.S. immigration officials issued her a notice to appear (NT A) inl I 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1239.l(a)(l) (requiring commencement of removal proceedings with the filing of an NTA
in an immigration court). In I I 2012, after multiple appeals and reman…
OCT272021_01H6212
Dismissed
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt52: Missing
v3_no_parsed_rules_gpt5mini_med: Missing
Oct 27, 2021
—
The Applicant does not contest the grounds for inadmissibility, as described in the Director's decision, which we incorporate here. Additionally, the record reflects that o~ I 2009, the Applicant was found inadmissible for misrepresentation and for not being in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa or other valid entry document. Sections 212(a)(6)(…