by
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's request for asylum, withholding of removal, and application for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his claim that he faced danger in his home country of Ghana. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the timeliness of petitioner's asylum application; the evidence petitioner submitted to support his request to remand based on changed country conditions was immaterial and did not support a remand based on changed country conditions; and petitioner's claim of humanitarian asylum was foreclosed because he failed to raise this issue to the agency. The court also held that petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future persecution or torture. In this case, petitioner's evidence would not compel all reasonable factfinders to conclude that his life or freedom would be endangered by a return to Ghana. Therefore, the court denied his petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal. Likewise, petitioner's claim for relief under the CAT also failed. View "Degbe v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision ordering petitioner removed under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B) and 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court held that petitioner acquired United States citizenship at birth through his United States citizen parent, Jorge Boreland, the husband of his mother and his legal parent under the relevant section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court noted that the principle guiding this decision—that a child born into a legal marriage is presumed to be the child of the marriage—is a lasting one, with deep roots in the common law. View "Jaen v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. The panel held that the BIA's determination that witness tampering under Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 was a crime involving moral turpitude did not warrant deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), because the agency's analysis directly conflicted with circuit precedent, and was inconsistent both internally and with prior BIA decisions. The panel held that Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because the statute captures conduct that was neither fraudulent nor base, vile, or depraved. Although the statute was divisible, the subsection that formed the basis for petitioner's conviction was likewise not a categorical match for a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction of plaintiff's complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Plaintiff sought damages suffered as a result of his removal from the United States in violation of this court's temporary stay of removal. The panel held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) did not deprive it of jurisdiction to hear the FTCA claims of a noncitizen who was wrongfully removed in violation of a court order. Therefore, the district court erred in holding otherwise. The panel held that a decision or action to violate a court order staying removal fell outside of the statute's jurisdiction-stripping reach. Even if the panel agreed that plaintiff's claims tangentially arose from the execution of his removal order, the panel would still retain jurisdiction because the Attorney General lacked the authority, and thus the discretion, to remove him. Finally, the panel rejected the government's alternative argument that plaintiff's claims were barred by the FTCA's foreign country exception. View "Arce v. United States" on Justia Law

by
The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's administrative appeal of the IJ's denial of her motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind her in absentia removal order. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion because it did not address whether petitioner's inability to get proper medical attention constituted exceptional circumstances sufficient to excuse her failure to attend her asylum hearing. Therefore, the court remanded for the agency to determine in the first instance whether petitioner's motion to reopen warranted a favorable exercise of the BIA's discretion. View "Payeras v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit held that the BIA erred in finding that petitioner's conviction for child abuse and neglect under Nevada law was categorically a "crime of child abuse" under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The panel held that it was bound by this circuit's opinion in Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions, No. 14-71742, 2018 WL 3520402 (9th Cir. July 23, 2018), which deferred to the BIA's interpretation, in Matter of Soram, 25 I. & N. Dec. 378 (BIA 2010), that the generic crime of child abuse includes acts and omissions that create at least a "reasonable probability" that a child will be harmed. In this case, the Nevada statute was broader than the federal generic crime and there was a realistic probability that Nevada could prosecute conduct under its statute that fell outside the scope of the federal generic crime. Therefore, the panel granted the petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner was removable. View "Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit dismissed, based on lack of jurisdiction, a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to terminate asylum-only proceedings and denial of his application for asylum. Petitioner entered the United States in 2000 pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), but the INS issued a notice in 2002 concluding that he was removable and had waived his right to contest his removeability as a VWP entrant after he was arrested for credit card fraud. As part of his plea agreement in the credit card prosecution, petitioner agreed to testify against his co-conspirators, in exchange for help resolving his immigration status. Petitioner was issued an I-94 Departure Record, paroling him into the United States for "significant public interest," so he could testify against his co-conspirators. After petitioner's parole had expired, DHS took him into custody pursuant to his 2002 removal order and petitioner then requested asylum. The panel held that the 2002 removal order was executed when petitioner briefly departed the United States in 2004. Because the 2002 order had already been executed when petitioner entered the United States in 2004, he was no longer an applicant under the VWP, but an applicant for admission. Therefore, there was no final removal order over which the court had jurisdiction. View "Nicusor-Remus v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner and her children petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that there was no legal error as to petitioner's petition and that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that her proposed social group (targeted gang girlfriends or witnesses who report crimes to the police) lacked particularity and was not cognizable. Furthermore, the record did not support a conclusion that a family relationship was a central reason for petitioner's persecution, and she failed to meet her burden of proof on her CAT claim. Therefore, the court denied her petition for review. In regard to the children's petition, the court held that the record showed they presented independent applications, but the Board failed to decide the applications separately from their mother's. Therefore, the court granted their petitions for review and remanded their cases for further consideration. View "Pena De Rivas v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision and held that the Board correctly determined that petitioner was convicted of a conspiracy related to the distribution of a controlled substance; the conviction rendered him inadmissible under the Controlled Substance Provision; and he was subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A). The court also held that section 1229a(c)(3)(B) did not prohibit the Board from considering petitioner's indictment. Finally, the court was without jurisdiction to address a new argument to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence because petitioner did not raise it before oral argument. View "Shaw v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, brought by children to halt the deportation of their father. The children argued that their father's deportation was arbitrary and violated their rights to familial association under the First and Fifth Amendments, and that his selective removal was because of his Hispanic origin and violated the equal-protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment. The court held that the children's familial-association claim raised a legal question squarely within 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9), which operated as an unmistakable zipper clause designed to consolidate and channel review of all legal and factual questions that arose from the removal of an alien through the preordained administrative process. Consequently, because the familial-association question reached the courts outside the prescribed administrative process, this court had no jurisdiction to consider it. The court also held that the children's selective-enforcement claim concerned how the Government chose to enforce already-issued removal orders. Therefore, these claims arose from a decision to execute removal orders and 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) generally barred judicial review of such claims. View "Vega Duron v. Johnson" on Justia Law