Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

A Cincinnati Immigration Law Firm

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Directions
      • Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.
      • Cleveland Immigration Court
      • USCIS Cincinnati Field Office
    • Why I do what I do
  • Immigration
    • Family Immigration Home
      • K-1 Petition for Alien Fiancé(e)
      • Marriage Green Card
      • Removal of Conditions on Status (I-751)
    • Investment Immigration
      • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
      • EB-5 Visas
    • Employment Immigration
      • Employment-Based Immigration: First Preference EB-1
      • Employment-Based Immigration: Second Preference EB-2
      • Employment Immigration H-1B
    • Naturalization 2021
    • Preventing Deportation
      • Immigration Court Video
      • Immigration Law Violations
      • Cancellation of Removal
      • I-212 Waivers
      • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Work Card or Employment Authorization Document
    • Nonimmigrant Options
      • H-1B Visas For Specialty Occupations, Like Yours
      • The B Visas: Business or Pleasure?
      • Types of Visas for Temporary Visitors
      • E-1/E-2 Eligibility Requirements
        • The E-1 Treaty Trader Visa
          • E-1 Treaty Traders Details
        • E-2 Treaty Investor Visa
    • I-601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
    • I-601 Waiver of Inadmissibility
    • Criminal Law and Immigration
    • Temporary Protected Status
    • USCIS Processing Times Calculator 2021
  • Legal Information
  • Archive & Site Map
  • Log In / Out

DHS does not have the final say in motions to reopen

September 21, 2009 by Thomas Geygan

In Matter of Lamus, 25 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2009), the Board held that an IJ may not deny an otherwise properly filed motion to reopen under Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), based solely on the fact that DHS opposed the motion. In Matter of Velarde, the BIA had set forth the factors to consider when adjudicating a motion to reopen to adjust status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of proceedings but where the visa petition has not been adjudicated. The last factor is whether DHS opposed the motion. The government had argued that DHS’ opposition is dispositive. However, the Board rejected this argument and said that though DHS’s opposition should be considered, it does not preclude an IJ from exercising independent judgment. Prior to Matter of Lamus, three courts had similarly rejected the government’s contention that DHS’ opposition is dispositive. Melnitsenko v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2008); Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007); Ahmed v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2008). Two courts, however, the Third and Fifth Circuits, had held that DHS can block a Velarde motion by opposing the motion. Bhiski v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2004); Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2005). Given these court’s prior treatment of the issue, the Board and IJs can be expected to follow Matter of Lamus even in the Third and Fifth Circuits.

Filed Under: Deportation & Removal, Immigration Court

Client Resources

May 15, 2017

 

More Posts from this Category

Featured Posts

Biden administration considers migrant restrictions similar to Trump policies.

Asylum rates drop as immigration cases are fast-tracked.

Contact Us

Geygan & Geygan, Ltd.

8050 Hosbrook Road, Suite 107
Cincinnati, Ohio 45236
Tel 513-791-1673
Fax 513-791-1683
info@geygan.com

Disclaimer and Privacy Policy

Lawyer Thomas Geygan | Featured Attorney Immigration

Copyright © 2023 · Enterprise Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in