Matter of A-M-
Board of Immigration Appeals
25 I. & N. Dec. 66 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The respondent was a Mexican citizen. In 1984, the respondent married her first husband, who was a United States citizen, in Mexico. In 1989, the respondent legally moved to the United States to live with her first husband. The respondent’s first husband physically and mentally abused her. In 1996, the couple separated. In 2001, the respondent became a legal permanent resident of the United States due to her status as a battered spouse under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA). In 2003, the respondent was convicted of driving under the influence. In 2004, the respondent finalized her divorce with her first husband. Also in 2004, the respondent brought two minor children who were not hers into the United States. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against the respondent. The respondent moved for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses under a provision in the INA. While the proceedings were pending, the respondent remarried. The respondent’s second husband was not abusive. The respondent had not seen her first husband since 1998. The respondent had three children legally living in the United States and presented evidence that she had a job, but failed to provide evidence that she filed income taxes. The immigration judge granted the respondent’s request for special rule cancellation of removal. The DHS appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cole, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.