U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of the Director
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2400
Falls Church, Virginia 22041

NEWS RELEASE Contact: Office of Public Affairs (703)305-0289, Fax: (703) 605-0365
Internet: www/usdoj.gov/eoir

______________________________________________________________________________

February 22, 1999

BIA TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN MIAMI, FLORIDA

A panel of three members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) will travel to Miami, Florida, on February 23-25, 1999, to hear oral arguments in six pending appellate cases. Chairman Paul W. Schmidt and Board Members Edward Grant and Lori Scialabba will hear the oral arguments at the Immigration Court, 155 South Miami Avenue, Miami.

The Board has scheduled oral arguments outside its headquarters in Falls Church, Virginia, on two other occasions. In 1998, the Board heard oral arguments in Los Angeles, California, and in San Antonio, Texas, as part of an on-going initiative to make the immigration appeals process, including oral argument, more accessible to parties in other parts of the country. It is part of a larger outreach effort by the Executive Office for Immigration Review to improve customer service overall.

The cases scheduled to be heard over the 3-day period involve interesting or novel aspects of law suitable for oral argument. One of the cases will be closed to the public; the other five cases are summarized below.

Case Summaries

Hareshchandra Nandlal. Issues for oral argument involve whether the respondent's convictions for crimes of theft, racketeering, and conspiracy to commit racketeering in violation of Florida law constitute aggravated felonies as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA); and whether the Immigration Judge erred in denying the respondent's motion to suppress and in admitting certain documents into evidence over the respondent's objections.

Carlos Trocha-Herrara. The respondents' application for suspension of deportation was denied by the Immigration Judge. Although they satisfy the good moral character and continuous physical presence requirements, at issue is whether they have established extreme hardship for such relief.

Minette Kanga. The respondent seeks adjustment of status, for which she requires a waiver of ineligibility because she has been convicted of an aggravated felony. At issue is whether her conviction renders her inadmissible under another section of the INA as an immigrant permanently ineligible for citizenship. The Immigration Judge found her ineligible to adjust and pretermitted her waiver application, which is also challenged on appeal.

Dora Garcia-De Serur. The respondent failed to voluntarily depart from the United States, making herself ineligible for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse. At issue is whether she had been given sufficient oral and written notice of the consequences of her failure to depart. The Immigration Judge also denied her application for discretionary relief. The respondent has waived her right to a closed proceeding in this case.

Hafza Hassan. The issue of this appeal by the Government is whether the Immigration Judge, in granting the respondent's application for asylum, properly found that the respondent established a well-founded fear of persecution on account of possible harm to her U.S. citizen daughter if the respondent were forced to return to Somalia. The respondent has waived her right to a closed proceeding in this case.

-- EOIR -