Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

Client Alert
May 23, 2025

Washington, D.C. – In a timely new article, Rob Ratliff, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge, clarifies the differences between Reasonable Fear Interviews and Credible Fear Interviews, essential processes for noncitizens fearing persecution or torture. Published at www.removal-defense.com, the article explains concepts central to recent judicial rulings, including U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s order addressing the Trump administration’s unlawful deportations to South Sudan, which violated his April 18, 2025, injunction (U.S. District Court, Massachusetts).

Reasonable Fear Interviews apply to individuals with prior removal orders, like those with aggravated felonies or reentry after deportation (INA § 238(b), § 241(a)(5)), assessing a “reasonable possibility” of persecution or torture. Successful cases lead to withholding-only proceedings for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection (8 CFR § 208.31). Credible Fear Interviews target those in expedited removal, like border apprehensions, requiring a lower “significant possibility” of eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection, potentially leading to an Asylum Merits Interview or removal proceedings (INA § 235(b)(1); 8 CFR § 208.30).

Both allow an immigration judge (IJ) review of negative findings, but the IJ review is final with no appeal (8 CFR § 1208.31(g); 8 CFR § 1003.42), unless a new hearing is granted. An alien may consult with counsel prior to a hearing with an IJ or asylum officer, but during asylum officer interviews, attorneys are limited to observation and consultation (8 CFR § 208.30(d)(4); 8 CFR § 208.31(c)). It is the discretion of the IJ or asylum officer, is the attorney is permitted provide brief argument on behalf of their client. Notice for a hearing is provided via Form I-863 or Notices to Appear (8 CFR § 1208.31(e); 8 CFR § 1239.1).

“Judge Murphy’s ruling underscores the due process issues in these screenings,” said Ratliff. “Our article connects these processes to real-world cases.” Read the full analysis at www.removal-defense.com.

ImmigrationImmigration LawRobert Ratliff
Client Alert

Ohio Recovery Housing Operators Beware: House Bill 58 Seeks to Make Major Changes

February 26, 2025Ohio House Bill 58 proposes significant changes to recovery housing oversight, granting ADAMH Boards authority to inspect and investigate recovery residences. The bill also introduces a Certificate of Need (CON) program, requiring state approval for major facility changes. OMHAS will assess applications based on cost, quality, accessibility, and financial feasibility. The bill also establishes a recovery housing residence fund to support inspections. For more information, contact BMD attorneys Daphne Kackloudis or Jordan Burdick.Client Alert

January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

February 25, 2025In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

February 20, 2025The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.Client Alert

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

February 11, 2025Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.Client Alert

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

January 30, 2025President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.
Older posts
Newer posts