IFS Immigration Court Procedures 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which standard of proof applies when an asylum applicant must demonstrate a 'well-founded fear' of persecution?
- Reasonable possibility (at least a 10% chance of persecution) (Correct answer)
- More likely than not (greater than 50%)
- Clear and convincing evidence
- Beyond a reasonable doubt
Correct answer: Reasonable possibility (at least a 10% chance of persecution)
The Supreme Court held in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca that a well-founded fear requires only a reasonable possibility of persecution, approximately 10% or more.
Question 2: A 'one-year filing deadline' applies in immigration court to which type of application?
- Applications for cancellation of removal for non-permanent residents
- Asylum applications, which must be filed within one year of arriving in the U.S. (Correct answer)
- Applications for adjustment of status in removal proceedings
- Petitions for U nonimmigrant status filed with USCIS
Correct answer: Asylum applications, which must be filed within one year of arriving in the U.S.
Under INA § 208(a)(2)(B), an alien must apply for asylum within one year of their last arrival in the United States, subject to limited exceptions.
Question 3: Under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10, if a respondent fails to appear for a removal hearing after proper notice, the immigration judge may:
- Grant a 30-day continuance automatically before issuing any order
- Order the respondent removed in absentia (Correct answer)
- Transfer the case to USCIS for administrative processing
- Close the case administratively pending the respondent's voluntary return
Correct answer: Order the respondent removed in absentia
If a respondent fails to appear after receiving proper notice, the immigration judge may order removal in absentia under INA § 240(b)(5).
Question 4: What is the significance of 'cancellation of removal' for a lawful permanent resident (LPR) in removal proceedings?
- It cancels the NTA and restores LPR status if the alien has 5 years of LPR status and 7 years of continuous residence
- It cancels the NTA and restores LPR status if the alien has 5 years of LPR status and 7 years of continuous residence, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony (Correct answer)
- It grants U.S. citizenship as a remedy for long-term LPRs
- It is available only to undocumented aliens, not LPRs
Correct answer: It cancels the NTA and restores LPR status if the alien has 5 years of LPR status and 7 years of continuous residence, and has not been convicted of an aggravated felony
Under INA § 240A(a), LPR cancellation requires 5 years of LPR status, 7 years of continuous residence, and no aggravated felony conviction.
Question 5: When a detained alien requests a bond redetermination before an immigration judge, the alien bears the burden of demonstrating:
- That DHS did not follow proper detention procedures
- That they are not a flight risk and not a danger to the community (Correct answer)
- That their underlying removal case has a strong likelihood of success
- That they have resided continuously in the U.S. for at least five years
Correct answer: That they are not a flight risk and not a danger to the community
The alien bears the burden at a bond hearing of showing they are neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk to justify a lower bond or release.
Question 6: The 'Convention Against Torture' (CAT) claim in immigration court requires an applicant to show torture is:
- More likely than not to occur if returned to the country of removal (Correct answer)
- A reasonable possibility based on past treatment
- Certain to occur based on clear and convincing evidence
- Likely based on a pattern or practice affecting a particular group
Correct answer: More likely than not to occur if returned to the country of removal
CAT relief requires proof that it is 'more likely than not' that the applicant would be tortured if removed to the proposed country.
Question 7: Which of the following is NOT a ground for rescinding an in absentia removal order under INA § 240(b)(5)(C)?
- The respondent did not receive proper notice of the hearing
- Exceptional circumstances caused the failure to appear
- The respondent subsequently obtained lawful permanent resident status (Correct answer)
- The order was entered in violation of applicable law
Correct answer: The respondent subsequently obtained lawful permanent resident status
Subsequent acquisition of LPR status is not a statutory ground to rescind an in absentia order; the recognized grounds are lack of notice, exceptional circumstances, and legal violation.
IFS Immigration Court Procedures 5
Which standard of proof applies when an asylum applicant must demonstrate a 'well-founded fear' of persecution?