Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

A lawful permanent resident from Haiti was admitted to the United States in 2016. He later pleaded guilty to smuggling goods, specifically exporting fifty firearms to Haiti without the required license, in violation of federal law. These firearms were concealed in vehicles shipped from Colorado to Florida, and then sent to Haiti. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him as removable for engaging in activity to violate U.S. laws prohibiting the export of goods.An Immigration Judge with the U.S. Department of Justice sustained the charges of removability and denied his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The judge found his testimony lacking in candor and determined that he failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Haiti. The judge noted that threats against him were speculative, not linked to government action or acquiescence, and that his relatives in Haiti remained safe. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, rejected his argument that the removal provision should apply only to explicit national security threats, and concluded that his conviction for illegal exportation satisfied the statutory grounds for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)(i) covers any activity to violate laws prohibiting the export of goods, not just acts involving national security threats. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral, as the petitioner failed to show a particularized risk of torture or government acquiescence, and that no due process violation had occurred. View "Olibris v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Two related cases concern an uncle and nephew, both born in Mexico, who claim United States citizenship through their ancestor, Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra, a woman born in Kansas in 1924. Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra’s son, born in Mexico in 1944, is the father of the older appellant and grandfather of the younger. Both appellants were born in Mexico; one was a long-term lawful permanent resident later removed for a felony, while the other was a former lawful permanent resident subject to a voluntary departure order, a criminal conviction, and subsequent removals. The appellants argue that citizenship passed to them through Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra and seek various forms of relief, including damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and habeas corpus.Their cases were brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where both raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The district court dismissed all claims. The appellants then filed timely appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the damages claims because, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the appellants are considered aliens and the claims arise from actions associated with removal proceedings. The court also concluded that the appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies required for declaratory judgment claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and the APA claims were jurisdictionally barred due to lack of final agency action. The habeas claim was barred because the petitioner was not “in custody,” and the due process claims were forfeited for inadequate briefing. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissals and modified one to be without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Guerra Quezada v. USA" on Justia Law

The case involves several married couples, each consisting of a U.S. citizen and a noncitizen spouse who is subject to a final order of removal. The noncitizen spouses are seeking lawful permanent residency through a process that requires them to first file a family-based petition, then seek special permission to reapply for admission, and finally apply for a provisional unlawful presence waiver. The waiver, if granted, would allow the noncitizen to leave the country to complete consular processing without triggering a lengthy inadmissibility bar. Several noncitizen plaintiffs were arrested by ICE at their immigration interviews, causing others to avoid or delay their own interviews out of fear of arrest and removal.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland certified a class of similarly situated couples and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The district court held that the government lacked authority to arrest or remove noncitizens during the provisional waiver process, finding this violated the relevant regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Due Process Clause. The court issued class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief, barring the government from interfering with plaintiffs’ participation in the waiver process through arrest or removal.Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The Fourth Circuit held that the relevant regulations do not bar the government from arresting or removing noncitizens during the provisional waiver process and that the plaintiffs do not have a protected interest in accessing the process without risk of removal. The court also found the factual record insufficient to support the alternative theory that the government uses the waiver process to target noncitizens for removal. Thus, the award of summary judgment to the plaintiffs was vacated. View "Sanchez v. Mullin" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is a Nigerian citizen, pleaded guilty to willfully and knowingly using a forged or counterfeit Nigerian passport to open a bank account, violating federal law. Years after becoming a permanent resident, he was detained upon his return to the country following international travel. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with inadmissibility, alleging that his conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude, and began removal proceedings.An immigration judge found him inadmissible based on this conviction and ordered his removal to Nigeria. The Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. The petitioner then sought review of the Board’s order, arguing that his conviction for false use of a passport does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court stated that it now independently interprets the relevant statutes, following recent Supreme Court guidance. Applying the categorical approach, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a conviction under the relevant passport fraud statute—specifically, willful and knowing use of a false, forged, or invalid passport—requires conduct that is inherently fraudulent or deceitful. The court found that all forms of conduct criminalized by the statute involve moral turpitude because they entail willful deception. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner’s conviction is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, making him inadmissible under immigration law. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Ademola v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a noncitizen who has resided in the United States for nearly three decades, has faced a final order of removal for approximately 15 years, primarily due to a 1997 narcotics conviction in New York. He has made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge this removal order. In the present matter, he contests the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his first motion for statutory reconsideration, his second motion for statutory reopening, and his third motion for sua sponte reopening. His arguments are grounded in recent case law from another circuit, which he claims constitutes a change in the legal landscape affecting his removal.Previously, an Immigration Judge entered a final removal order on consent in 2011. The BIA subsequently denied his motions for reconsideration and reopening, citing procedural and substantive bars. The petitioner’s efforts to reopen his case in the administrative process have been repeatedly rejected, and the current petition represents his fourth attempt to avoid removal. Throughout these proceedings, he has also sought to stay his removal while his petition is pending.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the petitioner’s request to continue a stay of removal. Applying the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder, the Third Circuit found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, or that the balance of equities favored a stay. The court also determined that the public interest and the government’s interests weighed against any further delay. Additionally, the court denied the petitioner’s motion to hold the case in abeyance pending a new collateral attack on his underlying conviction, finding it untimely and not material to the immigration proceedings. As a result, the Third Circuit vacated the stay of removal, allowing the government to proceed with enforcement of the removal order. View "Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan woman and her minor son entered the United States without authorization in June 2018 and were subsequently placed in removal proceedings. The woman conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging she suffered prolonged physical, sexual, and emotional abuse at the hands of her partner, Jose Vasquez. She claimed the abuse occurred because she belonged to two particular social groups: “Guatemalan females” and “Guatemalan females without protection,” and asserted that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her.An Immigration Judge denied all requested relief, finding she had not demonstrated eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding there was insufficient evidence to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and her claimed social group membership, and agreeing that the record did not show she would likely be tortured in Guatemala with government acquiescence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision under the substantial evidence standard. The court found that the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the finding that her social group membership was not “one central reason” for the abuse, as required for asylum or withholding of removal. Instead, the evidence reflected domestic violence motivated by personal and relational factors, not by her status as a member of a protected group. The court also concluded that the evidence did not compel a finding that she would more likely than not face torture in Guatemala with government acquiescence, citing steps taken by the Guatemalan government to combat domestic violence. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Matias-Pablo v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national entered the United States without inspection in 2013 and lived in Massachusetts. In September 2025, he was arrested by immigration authorities during a vehicle stop and placed in removal proceedings, charged as inadmissible for being present without admission or valid documentation. Under longstanding practice, individuals in his situation could seek release from detention on bond while their removal cases were pending. However, in July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance, later adopted by the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, that mandatory detention without bond applied to all noncitizens present in the U.S. without admission, shifting the legal framework and increasing the detained population.After his arrest, the individual challenged his detention without a bond hearing by filing a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, requiring his release or a bond hearing, and later certified a class action for similarly situated noncitizens. The district court ultimately held that the new DHS policy violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), finding that those present in the United States without admission were entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), not subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed whether the INA requires mandatory detention without bond for noncitizens present in the country without admission, or if they are eligible for bond hearings. The First Circuit held that § 1225(b)(2)(A) applies only to noncitizens "seeking admission"—that is, those seeking lawful entry at the border—not those already present after unlawful entry. Accordingly, detention and bond eligibility for class members are governed by § 1226(a), not § 1225(b)(2)(A), and the district court’s order was affirmed. View "Guerrero Orellana v. Moniz" on Justia Law

Three Venezuelan nationals, alleged by the government to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were detained in Texas following a presidential proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This proclamation, issued in March 2025, authorized immediate removal of Venezuelan citizens aged fourteen or older, residing in the United States, who were not naturalized or lawful permanent residents and were identified as members of the gang. The petitioners challenged the proclamation, arguing that it exceeded the President’s authority under the AEA and violated due process rights. They sought class certification and injunctive relief to prevent removal under the AEA.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied temporary restraining orders and class certification. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacated that dismissal and remanded, instructing the Fifth Circuit to address two issues: whether the petitioners were entitled to a preliminary injunction against removal under the AEA, and whether the notice provided for due process claims was sufficient for the putative class. The Supreme Court also allowed the government to remove the petitioners under other lawful authorities.After remand, the three named petitioners were removed from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not the AEA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that, because the petitioners were no longer in the country and no class had been certified, it was impossible to grant any effectual relief. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot for lack of jurisdiction, declining to substitute new class representatives on appeal but leaving open the possibility for future proceedings in the district court. View "W.M.M. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Three women orchestrated a scheme in 2014 to bring two girls, aged 11 and 14, from Benin to the United States under false pretenses. The girls’ families were promised that the children would attend school and have the opportunity to earn money. The women obtained fraudulent identification and travel documents, creating a fabricated story for immigration authorities. Once in Illinois, the girls were subjected to forced labor in the women’s homes, denied education and medical care, and suffered physical and psychological abuse. Over the course of several years, both girls managed to escape and later cooperated with authorities.A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Illinois indicted the women on charges of conspiracy to harbor and shield unauthorized aliens, actual harboring and shielding, and forced labor. After an initial mistrial, a retrial was held where the government presented extensive testimony from the victims and corroborating witnesses. The defense challenged the credibility of the victims, arguing inconsistencies in their accounts and motives related to immigration benefits. The jury nevertheless convicted all three defendants on all counts, and found that two had committed their offenses for financial gain, warranting enhanced sentences. The district court denied post-trial motions for acquittal or a new trial, emphasizing that credibility determinations were for the jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the reasonableness of the sentences imposed. It held that the evidence, including the victims’ testimonies and corroborating documentation, was sufficient for a rational jury to convict on the harboring and forced labor charges. The court also found that the sentences, which were within or below the applicable guideline range, were reasonable. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in its entirety. View "USA v Oke" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of El Salvador entered the United States without valid documents in 2018 after leaving his home country due to threats from the MS-13 gang. He had been a national civil police officer in El Salvador and testified that gang members targeted him and his family because he interfered with their criminal activities. The threats and attempts on his life all occurred while he was still serving as a police officer. After an incident involving his brother, he left El Salvador and has not received threats since his departure or since leaving the police force.An Immigration Judge found his testimony credible but denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The judge concluded that while his proposed social group as a former police officer was cognizable, he failed to show a sufficient nexus between the harm he feared and his status as a former police officer. The judge reasoned that the threats were due to his actions disrupting criminal activities, not simply his former police status. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, adopting the Immigration Judge’s reasoning and finding no error in the determination regarding the motive behind the threats.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed both the Immigration Judge’s and the Board’s decisions. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court held that because all threats occurred while the petitioner was still an active police officer and no harm or threats arose after he left the police force, there was insufficient nexus between the harm claimed and his status as a former police officer. Thus, the court denied the petition, holding that he was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. View "GONZALEZ-ARGUETA V. BLANCHE" on Justia Law