Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictiontestimonyfelonyvisa
jurisdictiontestimonyfelonyvisa

Related Cases

Tampubolon v. Holder
View Case »
Sharif ex rel. Sharif v. Ashcroft
View Case »
S-A-K-, Matter of
View Case »
Elatos Restaurant Corp. v. Sava
View Case »
Marin-Marin v. Sessions
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bakarian v. Mukasey

Facts

Arthur Bakarian, a native of the former Soviet Union, was charged with removability based on two crimes involving moral turpitude. He entered the U.S. as a visitor in 1987 and later received a permanent resident visa in 1990. Bakarian's criminal history included multiple theft convictions, and he argued that he met the continuous residence requirement for cancellation of removal. However, the Immigration Judge found that Bakarian's absences from the U.S. and the timing of his convictions disqualified him from eligibility.

Arthur Bakarian, a native of the former Soviet Union, was charged with removability based on two crimes involving moral turpitude. He entered the U.S. as a visitor in 1987 and later received a permanent resident visa in 1990. Bakarian's criminal history included multiple theft convictions, and he argued that he met the continuous residence requirement for cancellation of removal. However, the Immigration Judge found that Bakarian's absences from the U.S. and the timing of his convictions disqualified him from eligibility.

Issue

Did the Immigration Judge err in determining Bakarian's continuous residence and in applying the stop-time rule regarding his eligibility for cancellation of removal?

Did the Immigration Judge err in determining Bakarian's continuous residence and in applying the stop-time rule regarding his eligibility for cancellation of removal?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), an alien must have resided continuously in the U.S. for seven years after lawful admission and must not have been convicted of any aggravated felony to be eligible for cancellation of removal.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), an alien must have resided continuously in the U.S. for seven years after lawful admission and must not have been convicted of any aggravated felony to be eligible for cancellation of removal.

Analysis

The court found that Bakarian's own testimony indicated he did not establish continuous residence until 1990, as he had traveled back and forth between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Immigration Judge correctly applied the stop-time rule, which halts the continuous residence period upon the commission of a removable offense. Bakarian's failure to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the stop-time rule further limited the court's jurisdiction to review this claim.

The court found that Bakarian's own testimony indicated he did not establish continuous residence until 1990, as he had traveled back and forth between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Immigration Judge correctly applied the stop-time rule, which halts the continuous residence period upon the commission of a removable offense. Bakarian's failure to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the stop-time rule further limited the court's jurisdiction to review this claim.

Conclusion

The appellate court denied Bakarian's petition for review, affirming the lower court's decision that he did not meet the continuous residence requirement for cancellation of removal.

The appellate court denied Bakarian's petition for review, affirming the lower court's decision that he did not meet the continuous residence requirement for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the Immigration Judge's findings that Bakarian did not meet the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal due to his criminal convictions and failure to establish continuous residence.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the Immigration Judge's findings that Bakarian did not meet the eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal due to his criminal convictions and failure to establish continuous residence.

You must be