IJ did not err in finding that alien (native of Belarus) was statutorily inadmissible due to his prior conviction on charge of homicide by negligent operation of vehicle, where said conviction qualified as “particularly serious crime” under 8 USC sections 1158(b)(2)(A) (iii), and 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Moreover, Bd. did not err in finding that alien did not qualify for CAT protection, even though alien presented evidence that he was bullied and assaulted by others because of his Jewish religion, where record contained some evidence supporting IJ’s finding that alien failed to establish that there was substantial risk that he would be subject to future torture inflicted by or with consent of Belarus officials. However, remand was required, where Bd. erroneously concluded that alien had not raised any meaningful challenge to his inadmissibility in his pro se brief, even though his counsel had conceded that alien was inadmissible in later-filed brief. Also, IJ erred in using wrong legal standard, i.e., alien’s failure to show that removal would cause extreme hardship to his citizen-wife, when finding that alien was statutorily ineligible for waiver of inadmissibility, when IJ should have applied less stringent standard that allowed waiver for humanitarian purposes.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Immigration