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

appealasylumliens
appealasylumliens

Related Cases

Barry v. Mukasey
View Case »
Sou v. Gonzales
View Case »
Gonzales; U.S. v.
View Case »
Ramirez-Perez v. Barr
View Case »
Padilla-Caldera v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Barahona v. Holder

Facts

Petitioner Jos. Barahona entered the U.S. illegally in 1985 and applied for asylum, which was denied. He was found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) for providing 'material support' to a terrorist organization by allowing Salvadoran guerrillas to use his kitchen under duress. The immigration judge acknowledged the duress but ruled that the Material Support Bar contained no exception for such circumstances.

Petitioner Jos. Barahona entered the U.S. illegally in 1985 and applied for asylum, which was denied. He was found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I) for providing 'material support' to a terrorist organization by allowing Salvadoran guerrillas to use his kitchen under duress. The immigration judge acknowledged the duress but ruled that the Material Support Bar contained no exception for such circumstances.

Issue

Whether the Material Support Bar under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B) includes an exception for involuntary support provided under duress.

Whether the Material Support Bar under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B) includes an exception for involuntary support provided under duress.

Rule

The Material Support Bar does not contain any express exception for material support provided to a terrorist organization either involuntarily or under duress.

The Material Support Bar does not contain any express exception for material support provided to a terrorist organization either involuntarily or under duress.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by interpreting the Material Support Bar as encompassing both voluntary and involuntary support. It noted that Congress had created a general waiver provision for aliens who are inadmissible but did not include an exception for involuntary support in the Material Support Bar. Thus, the court deferred to the BIA's interpretation that no such exception exists.

The court applied the rule by interpreting the Material Support Bar as encompassing both voluntary and involuntary support. It noted that Congress had created a general waiver provision for aliens who are inadmissible but did not include an exception for involuntary support in the Material Support Bar. Thus, the court deferred to the BIA's interpretation that no such exception exists.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Barahona was ineligible for the special rule cancellation of removal and denied the petition for review.

The court affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Barahona was ineligible for the special rule cancellation of removal and denied the petition for review.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its interpretation of the Material Support Bar, which does not allow for an exception based on duress.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its interpretation of the Material Support Bar, which does not allow for an exception based on duress.

You must be