Law Firm of Bryant R. Camareno, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

08/21/2026

“[W]here ․ a defendant has been found incompetent to proceed and is then released upon conditions and commits a new offense, section 916.17(2)[, Florida Statutes,] leaves the trial judge with only two options: modify the conditions of release or involuntarily commit the defendant to DCFS for treatment.” Douse v. State, 930 So. 2d 838, 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); accord Paolercio v. State, 129 So. 3d 1174, 1175–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Douse, 930 So. 2d at 839).

08/16/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of A-G-O-F-, 29 I&N Dec. 772 (BIA 2026).

(1) “Brazilian children” and “abandoned Brazilian children” are not cognizable particular social groups because they are not defined with sufficient particularity.

(2) The Immigration Judge clearly erred in determining that the respondent’s past harm was perpetrated by individuals that the government of Brazil was unable or unwilling to control when the government arrested one of the perpetrators in connection with other crimes, the respondent has not shown that the other perpetrator is still at large because of an inability or unwillingness of the government to investigate and punish his crimes, and the government provides services for abused children to help authorities protect them.

(3) The respondent did not establish eligibility for humanitarian asylum because he did not show that the government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the harm he suffered in the past.

08/16/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of H-L-S-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 767 (BIA 2026).

(1) The Immigration Judge clearly erred in finding it more likely than not the applicant will be tortured if removed to either Mexico or Guatemala based on general country conditions evidence and expert witness testimony about corruption while overlooking key facts regarding the applicant’s individualized circumstances, including lack of past torture, the passage of time since the applicant received threats, and the vague and indirect nature of the threats.

(2) The applicant did not establish that a public official is likely to acquiesce to his torture by gang members where the record shows elements within the government have taken action to combat criminal organizations, even if such efforts have not been effective.

08/05/2026

In legal news …

A federal judge has blocked New York from enforcing a law that would have prohibited federal agents from wearing face coverings and required them to displa

08/03/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of I-U-V-, 29 I&N Dec. 816 (BIA 2026).

(1) Harm or injury suffered while a respondent is a minor does not necessarily constitute persecution, but instead it is necessary to consider the respondent’s age and the cumulative nature of the harm, including the severity, frequency, context, and circumstances.

(2) A withholding of removal claim based on an assertion that there is a pattern or practice of persecution against a protected group still requires an objective showing of a clear probability of persecution and does not have a subjective component.

07/23/2026

The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision in Matter of LOPEZ RICO, 29 I&N Dec. 780 (BIA 2026).

(1) Where a respondent invokes the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment in response to questions material to whether he merits a favorable exercise of discretion, the Immigration Judge may draw reasonable adverse inferences from the respondent’s refusal to provide material testimony.

07/19/2026

In legal news …
“Weinstein's New York r**e charge dropped after accuser says she can't endure a 4th trial.”

The movie mogul still stands convicted of another sexual felony in New York and others in California, and he remains behind bars. But the New York r**e charge had remained unresolved after an overturned conviction followed by two hung juries.

07/12/2026

In legal news …United States v. Hemani altered the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The federal Gun Control Act previously barred anyone who was an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing a firearm. The Ruling: The Court found that prosecuting a frequent ma*****na user under the "unlawful user" provision was unconstitutionally broad because the government failed to present historical gun regulations from the founding era that justified stripping a casual drug user of their Second Amendment rights.