Taggar v. Holder

An Immigration Judge does not abuse discretion when setting an extended date for relief applications for the Convention Against Torture and when deeming someone ineligible for a waiver of removability or inadmissibility when it is a crime that is not waivable.

Pritam Taggar petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision that she waived and abandoned her relief application, and that she is ineligible for a waiver of removability or inadmissibility. Taggar was charged as removable based on a conviction of conspiracy to defraud the United States though visa fraud. In 2007, Taggar’s case was reopened and the Immigration Judge (IJ) set a filing date for any application for reliefs under the Convention Against Torture. No applications were filed until after the set date, and Taggar become removable. The panel held that the IJ’s decision did not abuse discretion because the extended deadline was for all relief applications, and because a deadline may lawfully be imposed on an application for relief under the Convention Against Torture pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c). The panel also determined that Taggar was not an inadmissible alien eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H) because the waiver requires the alien to be inadmissible at entry, instead Taggar was deportable based on a conviction for fraudulent documentation which is a crime that is not waivable. Petition DENIED.