Evidence in Protection-Order Violation Deportability Cases

What DHS must prove under INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii), why the categorical approach does not control, and how Matter of Obshatko and related cases define the evidentiary inquiry.

Protection-order deportability is not governed by the ordinary categorical approach. Matter of Obshatko directs Immigration Judges to consider probative and reliable evidence of what a court determined about the violation, including whether the violated portion involved protection against credible threats, repeated harassment, or bodily injury.

For protection order violation immigration evidence, the practitioner should map the protection order violation immigration evidence charge before making concessions. The protection order violation immigration evidence map should identify the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence statutory comparator, the governing protection order violation immigration evidence method, and the evidence that current protection order violation immigration evidence law permits.

INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) does not require a criminal conviction in the same way as the domestic-violence and child-abuse conviction ground.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition resolves the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) does not require a criminal conviction in” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “the same way as the domestic-violence and child-abuse conviction ground.” is treated as established. Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 1 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

The relevant question is whether a court determined that the respondent engaged in conduct violating the portion of a protection order designed to protect against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition frames the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “The relevant question is whether a court determined that the respondent engaged in conduct violating the portion of a protection order designed to protect against credible threats of violence” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “repeated harassment” is treated as established. Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 2 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

Matter of Obshatko rejects use of the categorical approach and instead authorizes consideration of probative and reliable evidence regarding the state court's determination.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition limits the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “Matter of Obshatko rejects use of the categorical approach and instead” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “authorizes consideration of probative and reliable evidence regarding the state court's determination.” is treated as established. Matter of Strydom, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 3 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

Matter of Medina-Jimenez follows Obshatko and emphasizes the protection-focused portion of the order and the conduct the court determined violated it.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition defines the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “Matter of Medina-Jimenez follows Obshatko and emphasizes the protection-focused portion” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “of the order and the conduct the court determined violated it.” is treated as established. Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 4 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

A generic contempt conviction or docket entry may be insufficient if it does not identify which provision of a multi-part protection order was violated.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition narrows the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “A generic contempt conviction or docket entry may be insufficient if it” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “does not identify which provision of a multi-part protection order was violated.” is treated as established. Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 5 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

The underlying protection order, petition, findings, violation order, hearing transcript, contempt judgment, and related court records can be critical.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition controls the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “The underlying protection order” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “petition” is treated as established. Matter of Strydom, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 6 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

Police allegations that were never adopted by the state court should be distinguished from what the court actually determined.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition structures the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “Police allegations that were never adopted by the state” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “court should be distinguished from what the court actually determined.” is treated as established. Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 7 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

Mutual or cross-protection orders require careful identification of whom the order protected and which provisions applied to the respondent.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition changes the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “Mutual or cross-protection orders require careful identification of whom” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “the order protected and which provisions applied to the respondent.” is treated as established. Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 8 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

The survivor waiver in INA §237(a)(7) can apply to certain protection-order violations, including defined situations where the order was intended to protect the respondent.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition directs the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “The survivor waiver in INA §237(a)(7) can apply to certain protection-order violations” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “including defined situations where the order was intended to protect the respondent.” is treated as established. Matter of Strydom, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 9 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

DHS bears the clear-and-convincing deportability burden, and the respondent should object when evidence is unreliable, unauthenticated, or does not establish the required judicial determination.

Within protection order violation immigration evidence, this proposition governs the protection order violation immigration evidence dispute. The clause “DHS bears the clear-and-convincing deportability burden” must be linked to protection order violation immigration evidence authority before “and the respondent should object when evidence is unreliable” is treated as established. Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) supplies a published protection order violation immigration evidence reference for the legal method or qualifier involved.

A protection order violation immigration evidence record on rule 10 should identify the protection order violation immigration evidence document proving the conviction, the protection order violation immigration evidence source proving the legal rule, and the protection order violation immigration evidence fact that remains disputed. That rule-specific protection order violation immigration evidence structure keeps allegations from replacing the legally operative protection order violation immigration evidence requirement.

Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) matters to protection order violation immigration evidence because its holding addresses a protection order violation immigration evidence component reflected in this rule: INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) does not require a criminal conviction in the same way as the domestic-violence and child-abuse conviction ground.

Applying Matter of Obshatko, 27 I&N Dec. 173 (BIA 2017) to protection order violation immigration evidence also requires attention to this separate protection order violation immigration evidence proposition: The relevant question is whether a court determined that the respondent engaged in conduct violating the portion of a protection order designed to protect against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury. The protection order violation immigration evidence brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the protection order violation immigration evidence holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) matters to protection order violation immigration evidence because its holding addresses a protection order violation immigration evidence component reflected in this rule: Matter of Obshatko rejects use of the categorical approach and instead authorizes consideration of probative and reliable evidence regarding the state court's determination.

Applying Matter of Medina-Jimenez, 27 I&N Dec. 399 (BIA 2018) to protection order violation immigration evidence also requires attention to this separate protection order violation immigration evidence proposition: Matter of Medina-Jimenez follows Obshatko and emphasizes the protection-focused portion of the order and the conduct the court determined violated it. The protection order violation immigration evidence brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the protection order violation immigration evidence holding beyond its procedural posture.

Matter of Strydom, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011) matters to protection order violation immigration evidence because its holding addresses a protection order violation immigration evidence component reflected in this rule: A generic contempt conviction or docket entry may be insufficient if it does not identify which provision of a multi-part protection order was violated.

Applying Matter of Strydom, 25 I&N Dec. 507 (BIA 2011) to protection order violation immigration evidence also requires attention to this separate protection order violation immigration evidence proposition: The underlying protection order, petition, findings, violation order, hearing transcript, contempt judgment, and related court records can be critical. The protection order violation immigration evidence brief should use the case for those propositions and avoid extending the protection order violation immigration evidence holding beyond its procedural posture.

A protection order violation immigration evidence file should integrate three distinct protection order violation immigration evidence propositions. First: INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) does not require a criminal conviction in the same way as the domestic-violence and child-abuse conviction ground. Second: Matter of Medina-Jimenez follows Obshatko and emphasizes the protection-focused portion of the order and the conduct the court determined violated it. Third: Police allegations that were never adopted by the state court should be distinguished from what the court actually determined.

Those protection order violation immigration evidence propositions determine the protection order violation immigration evidence documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove protection order violation immigration evidence elements and sentence; historical materials should prove protection order violation immigration evidence timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific protection order violation immigration evidence qualifier. The final protection order violation immigration evidence brief should assign each protection order violation immigration evidence burden and request a precise protection order violation immigration evidence ruling.

A protection order violation immigration evidence file should integrate three distinct protection order violation immigration evidence propositions. First: The relevant question is whether a court determined that the respondent engaged in conduct violating the portion of a protection order designed to protect against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury. Second: A generic contempt conviction or docket entry may be insufficient if it does not identify which provision of a multi-part protection order was violated. Third: Mutual or cross-protection orders require careful identification of whom the order protected and which provisions applied to the respondent.

Those protection order violation immigration evidence propositions determine the protection order violation immigration evidence documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove protection order violation immigration evidence elements and sentence; historical materials should prove protection order violation immigration evidence timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific protection order violation immigration evidence qualifier. The final protection order violation immigration evidence brief should assign each protection order violation immigration evidence burden and request a precise protection order violation immigration evidence ruling.

A protection order violation immigration evidence file should integrate three distinct protection order violation immigration evidence propositions. First: Matter of Obshatko rejects use of the categorical approach and instead authorizes consideration of probative and reliable evidence regarding the state court's determination. Second: The underlying protection order, petition, findings, violation order, hearing transcript, contempt judgment, and related court records can be critical. Third: The survivor waiver in INA §237(a)(7) can apply to certain protection-order violations, including defined situations where the order was intended to protect the respondent.

Those protection order violation immigration evidence propositions determine the protection order violation immigration evidence documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove protection order violation immigration evidence elements and sentence; historical materials should prove protection order violation immigration evidence timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific protection order violation immigration evidence qualifier. The final protection order violation immigration evidence brief should assign each protection order violation immigration evidence burden and request a precise protection order violation immigration evidence ruling.

A protection order violation immigration evidence file should integrate three distinct protection order violation immigration evidence propositions. First: Matter of Medina-Jimenez follows Obshatko and emphasizes the protection-focused portion of the order and the conduct the court determined violated it. Second: Police allegations that were never adopted by the state court should be distinguished from what the court actually determined. Third: DHS bears the clear-and-convincing deportability burden, and the respondent should object when evidence is unreliable, unauthenticated, or does not establish the required judicial determination.

Those protection order violation immigration evidence propositions determine the protection order violation immigration evidence documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove protection order violation immigration evidence elements and sentence; historical materials should prove protection order violation immigration evidence timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific protection order violation immigration evidence qualifier. The final protection order violation immigration evidence brief should assign each protection order violation immigration evidence burden and request a precise protection order violation immigration evidence ruling.

A protection order violation immigration evidence file should integrate three distinct protection order violation immigration evidence propositions. First: INA §237(a)(2)(E)(ii) does not require a criminal conviction in the same way as the domestic-violence and child-abuse conviction ground. Second: The underlying protection order, petition, findings, violation order, hearing transcript, contempt judgment, and related court records can be critical. Third: DHS bears the clear-and-convincing deportability burden, and the respondent should object when evidence is unreliable, unauthenticated, or does not establish the required judicial determination.

Those protection order violation immigration evidence propositions determine the protection order violation immigration evidence documents worth collecting. Certified records should prove protection order violation immigration evidence elements and sentence; historical materials should prove protection order violation immigration evidence timing when timing matters; broader proof should be reserved for a circumstance-specific protection order violation immigration evidence qualifier. The final protection order violation immigration evidence brief should assign each protection order violation immigration evidence burden and request a precise protection order violation immigration evidence ruling.