25 I. & N. Dec. 507
BIA2011Background
- Respondent Rudolf Strydom, a South African native, became a lawful permanent resident in 2008.
- A Kansas temporary protection-from-abuse order dated April 28, 2010 required no contact with his wife.
- On May 6, 2010, respondent was convicted under Kansas 21-3843 for violating the protection order and for harassment by phone.
- DHS charged removal under 237(a)(2)(E)(ii) based on violation of the protection order involving credible threats, harassment, or bodily injury.
- The Immigration Judge found removability; respondent contested, and the Board reviews de novo; conviction record indicated a no-contact violation under 60-3101 et seq.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conviction supports removability under 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). | Strydom argues no-contact violation may not fit the statute. | Respondent contends record insufficient to prove the removable offense. | Yes; record supports removability under 237(a)(2)(E)(ii). |
Key Cases Cited
- Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2009) (no-contact provisions can trigger protection against credible threats/harassment)
- Alanis-Alvarado v. Holder, 558 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2009) (injunction against telephoning a domestic partner involves protection against violence/harassment)
- Matter of Milian, 25 I&N Dec. 197 (BIA 2010) (modified categorical approach to review conviction records)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (general framework for categorical/modified-c categorical analysis)