Immigration — legalization applications

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Immigration — legalization applications

Where the Administrative Appeals Office conducted no individualized analysis, its denial of a legalization application must be vacated.

“We conclude that the AAO abused its discretion by failing to conduct an individualized analysis and by disregarding probative evidence. Its boilerplate determinations are contrary to the detailed evidence in the record. Although the AAO is not required to ‘write an exegesis on every contention an applicant raises,’ Kiorkis v. Holder, 634 F.3d 924, 928-29 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dobrota v. INS, 195 F.3d 970, 974 (7th Cir. 1999)), it has a duty to conduct an individualized review and to explain the reasons for its conclusions in each case. Because we also find that Siddiqui’s conviction did not warrant the AAO’s denial of his legalization applications, we vacate the BIA’s deportation order and remand so that the AAO can conduct an individualized analysis of the evidence.”

Petitions granted.

09-3912, 10-1282 & 10-3221 Siddiqui v. Holder

Petitions for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Flaum, J.