CASES OF INTEREST click here to go back to the Cases of Interest         IMMIGRATION: ASYLUM ISSUES   Issue: One motion rule on motion to re-open under 8 CFR § 3.23 (b)(4)(III)   Issue: Asylum/ past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution under INA § 208(a);101(a)(42)(A)     Issue: One motion rule on motion to re-open under 8 CFR § 3.23 (b)(4)(III) In Re: Ydalia Cruz Garcia File: 22 I&N Dec. 1155 (BIA 1999) Q1. Does 8 CFR § 3.23 (b)(4)(III) contain time or numerical limitations on an alien who wishes to file a motion to reopen to vacate an outstanding order of deportation entered in absentia pursuant to section 242B of the act? Q2. Can the "exceptional circumstances" standard set forth in 8 CFR3.23 (b)(4)(III)(A)(1) be applied to such motions to vacate the underlined order? Q3. Can such proceedings be allowed to permit the respondent to pursue a previously unavailable relief for adjustment of status? A: The regulation requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal deportation or exclusion. However, in the asylum context based on changed country conditions, there is an exception to the one motion rule. Also no time or numerical limitation applies to a motion to reopen that is agreed to by all parties and jointly filed. Since the respondent's case is not governed by Section 242B of the act, she has to only show a reasonable cause for missing her scheduled deportation hearing and not exceptional circumstances. Since the respondent's motion to reopen was untimely, we cannot consider her motion for a previously unavailable relief.     Issue: Asylum/ past persecution and well-founded fear of future persecution under INA § 208(a);101(a)(42)(A) INA 208(a);101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A);8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(i);In re S-A-, Respondent 22 I& N December 2000. Decided as amended June 27, 2000 Interim Decision #3433 BIA Q. Does past persecution and a well-founder fear of future persecution from a relative, on account of religious beliefs qualify for asylum? Yes. A Moroccan woman established that she suffered physical and emotional abuse and would suffer the same abuse at the hands of her father if she were returned to Morocco, because of his orthodox Muslim beliefs, particularly pertaining to women. The BIA accepted the respondent’s contention that even if she had turned to the government for help, Moroccan authorities would have been unable or unwilling to control her father’s conduct. The BIA found the respondent’s account consistent and credible, contrary to the Immigration Judge because the Immigration Judge : (a) did not specify any internal discrepancies in the respondent’s testimony. (b) did not identify any discrepancies between the respondent’s testimony and her Form I-589 or the corroborative testimony of her aunt. (c) did not provide any specific and cogent reasons for the adverse conclusion. (d) The report of the United States Department of State in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997 corroborated testimony offered by the respondent and her aunt. (e) The INS did not show that conditions in Morocco had materially changed such that, upon her return, the respondent could reasonably expect governmental protection from her persecutor.