by
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board's decision denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal on the ground that she was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (bribery). The panel applied Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951), and Tseung Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir. 1957), and held that a crime involving moral turpitude is not unconstitutionally vague. The panel held that Boutilier v. INS, 387 U.S. 118 (1967), does not foreclose consideration of whether a crime committed by a non-citizen constitutes a crime of moral turpitude so as to render her inadmissible. The panel also held that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), extending to the immigration context its earlier opinion in Johnson, did not eviscerate the panel's holding in Tseung Chu such that the panel should overrule it. Therefore, the panel remained bound by Jordan and Tseung Chu. View "Martinez-de Ryan v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The First Circuit remanded this case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for reconsideration of Petitioner’s eligibility for asylum, holding that the BIA committed several errors in its review of the decision of the immigration judge (IJ). An IJ granted Petitioner asylum, concluding that Petitioner met his burden of proving he was entitled to asylum. Among other things, the IJ found that the police in Mexico would be unable to protect Petitioner from members of organized crime who had murdered his son and continued to target him and the rest of his nuclear family. The BIA concluded that the IJ’s finding of inability was clearly erroneous. The First Circuit reversed, holding (1) among the BIA’s errors in reviewing the IJ’s decision, the BIA failed to examiner separately the evidence of the government’s willingness to protect Petitioner from persecution and the evidence of its ability to do so; and (2) the BIA’s flawed analysis of the IJ’s decision required a remand of this case. View "Justo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
Dhakal, a member of the Nepali Congress political party, which is targeted by the Maoist party, worked with the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 2012, he received a letter from the Maoists, ordering him to cease his activities. Weeks later, four men stopped him, told him that the Maoist party had sent them, beat him and smashed his motorbike, saying “next time, he will be finished.” A ranger discovered Dhakal. A newspaper reported the attack. Dhakal continued his activities and received more threats In 2013, Dhakal arrived in the U.S. after the University of Rhode Island invited him to participate in a course in nonviolent conflict resolution. Maoists went to his home and threatened his wife, who fled with their children. Dhakal sought asylum. While Dhakal’s application remained pending, Nepal suffered an earthquake and was designated for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), so that its eligible nationals would not be removed and could receive employment authorization. Dhakal' TPS was twice extended. Dhakal is in lawful status and manages a Wisconsin gas station. In 2016, an asylum officer found Dhakal not credible and that Dhakal had not shown a reasonable possibility of future persecution. A final denial letter stated that, because of Dhakal’s TPS status, his asylum application would not be referred for adjudication in removal proceedings. Dhakal filed suit under the Administrative Procedures and Declaratory Judgment Acts, arguing that he has exhausted all administrative remedies presently available. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. The challenged decision is not a final agency action so Dhakal is not entitled to relief under the APA. The statutory scheme for adjudication of asylum claims must be allowed to take its course. View "Dhakal v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Fifth Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3). The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's challenges to the IJ's determination that his mistreatment was not torture under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and petitioner's request to remand to the BIA so that the BIA could consider a derivative asylum claim based on his wife's recent grant of asylum. Therefore, the court dismissed as to these claims. The court agreed with the IJ's finding that petitioner had not proven that he was harmed because of his political opinion or one imputed to him. Furthermore, to the extent petitioner's claimed social group was family members of Roma, the record was devoid of evidence that the persecution suffered by his wife was directed at him. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in all other respects. View "Revencu v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
Cortina-Chavez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. on an unknown date and place, without inspection. He was arrested for DUI in 2010. In subsequent removal proceedings, Cortina-Chavez sought cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An IJ denied cancellation of removal because Cortina-Chavez failed to establish that he had been continuously, physically present in the U.S. for 10 years; denied asylum because he did not submit his application within one year of arrival, and did not come within any exception; denied withholding of removal because Cortina-Chavez failed to demonstrate that he faced persecution in Mexico; and denied his CAT application because he did not establish that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to torture in Mexico. Cortina-Chavez's counsel filed a Notice of Appeal, listing seven “initial arguments,” each stated in conclusory fashion, with no citations, indicating his intent to file a brief. Cortina-Chavez did not timely file a brief. The BIA summarily dismissed his appeal and, through a single member, denied a motion for reconsideration as not identifying any error in law or fact, or any argument that was overlooked. Counsel failed to explain why the appeal was not subject to summary dismissal; did not explain why he never filed the promised brief; cited no authority for requesting a three-member panel; and did not show why his motion should be granted sua sponte. The Seventh Circuit dismissed his petition for review of the BIA’s refusal to grant sua sponte review of its prior decision and denied the remainder of the petition, noting Cortina-Chavez challenged only one of the two independent and adequate reasons for summary dismissal. View "Cortina-Chavez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
"Immediate relatives” of U.S. Citizens can enter the United States without regard to numerical limitations on immigration. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 587 (AWA) amended the statute so that a citizen “who has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor” may not file any petition on behalf of such relatives “unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, determines that the citizen poses no risk to the alien.” The definition of a “specified offense against a minor,” includes “[c]riminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memos state that “a petitioner who has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor must submit evidence of rehabilitation and any other relevant evidence that clearly demonstrates, beyond any reasonable doubt," that he poses no risk and that “approval recommendations should be rare.” In 2004, Bakran, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of aggravated indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor. In 2012, Bakran married an adult Indian national and sought lawful permanent resident status for her. USCIS denied his application citing AWA. Bakran claimed violations of the Constitution and Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 701. The Third Circuit held that the protocols Bakran challenged simply guide the Secretary’s determination; courts lack jurisdiction to review them. The AWA does not infringe Bakran’s marriage right but deprives him of an immigration benefit to which he has no constitutional right. The Act is aimed at providing prospective protection and is not impermissibly retroactive. View "Bakran v. Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

by
S.E.R.L., a native of Honduras, fled to the U.S. in 2014 and unsuccessfully sought asylum and statutory withholding of removal based on membership in a proposed particular social group “immediate family members of Honduran women unable to leave a domestic relationship.” She fears persecution by Angel, who abducted, raped, and continues to stalk S.E.R.L.’s daughter, who has already been granted asylum. Orellana, S.E.R.L.’s stepfather, has repeatedly abused S.E.R.L.’s mother. An immigration judge found S.E.R.L. credible but concluded that S.E.R.L. had not met her burden to establish eligibility for relief. The IJ reasoned that Angel had targeted S.E.R.L.’s daughter, not her and that “her stepfather never physically harmed her.” The IJ stated that any harm she suffered was not on account of a protected ground; her proposed group “lack[ed] the requisite level of particularity and social distinction” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review, citing the BIA’s three-part test for proving the existence of a cognizable particular social group, which requires applicants to establish that the group [at issue] is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, defined with particularity, and socially distinct within the society in question. That interpretation is entitled to Chevron deference. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that S.E.R.L. has not met its requirements. View "S.E.R.L. v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

by
Manuel Chavez-Morales appeared before the district court following his fifth conviction for an illegal reentry offense. At sentencing, he argued that higher wages in the United States motivated his decision to illegally reenter the United States. Focusing heavily on Chavez-Morales’s criminal history and noting that none of the earlier sentences deterred Chavez-Morales from reoffending, the district court imposed an upward variant sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment. The district court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Chavez-Morales challenged the procedural reasonableness of his term of imprisonment. Specifically, he argued the district court did not meaningfully consider his argument that economic opportunities motivated his decision to illegally reenter the United States and thereby mitigated the seriousness of his offense. Furthermore, Chavez-Morales argued the district court committed plain error by imposing a term of supervised release without acknowledging or considering United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) section 5D1.1(c), which stated a court “ordinarily” should not impose a term of supervised release when “the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment.” The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. With respect to the prison term, the Court found the transcript of the sentencing hearing established that, on three occasions, the district court addressed the economic motivation argument. As to the imposition of a term of supervised release, while the district court erred by not acknowledging and considering U.S.S.G. 5D1.1(c), Chavez- Morales did not carry his burden on the third prong of the plain error analysis. View "United States v. Chavez-Morales" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court vacated so much of the judgment granting sole legal and physical custody of Petitioner’s child to Petitioner that declined to enter special findings and remanded the case for further proceedings. Petitioner filed a petition seeking custody of his son, a seventeen-year-old undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. A motion for special findings of fact and rulings of law requesting the judge to make special findings necessary for the child’s application for special immigrant juvenile status under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) was also filed. The judge declined to make the requested special findings. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the child was entitled to the special findings and directed the probate and family court to act forthwith on the motion for special findings. View "Hernandez-Lemus v. Arias-Diaz" on Justia Law

by
The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the Board's decision vacating the IJ's order of withholding of removal, and denial of relief, ordering petitioner removed to Mexico. The court was unable to tell from the Board's rather opaque opinion whether the agency followed its regulations and applied the correct standard of review. Therefore, the court remanded to the Board for further proceedings in which it may clarify its decision or apply the correct standard of review as appropriate. View "Garcia-Mata v. Sessions" on Justia Law