Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

An individual who immigrated to the United States from Albania as a child and later became a lawful permanent resident was found removable due to convictions for a firearms offense and two crimes involving moral turpitude. His criminal history included larceny, attempted home invasion, driving-related offenses, and forgery. Despite these convictions, the Immigration Judge found that the hardships his removal would cause his family—particularly his ailing mother—outweighed the negative factors and granted cancellation of removal.Following this decision, the Department of Homeland Security appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board). The Board reversed the Immigration Judge, concluding that the individual's positive equities did not outweigh his substantial criminal record and vacated the grant of cancellation, ordering his removal to Albania. The individual then petitioned for review of the Board’s decision and separately sought reconsideration and reopening before the Board, arguing procedural and substantive errors regarding his removability. The Board denied his motion for reconsideration, citing waiver of removability challenges, lack of entitlement to relief under new legal authority, and absence of new material evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed both petitions. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, as the challenge was based on disagreement with the Board’s weighing of discretionary factors, not on legal or constitutional grounds. The court further held that the individual had waived his challenge to the removability finding by failing to appeal it and that the Board was not required to revisit that issue. The Sixth Circuit therefore denied both petitions for review. View "Dodaj v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Liberia was charged with removability after being convicted twice in North Dakota for violating protection orders that prohibited him from contacting his wife, Rose Tiah. These orders were issued following incidents in which he engaged in disorderly conduct and was alleged to have threatened or harassed his wife. The protection orders in question were not included in the administrative record, but related police reports, charging documents, and the petitioner’s own admissions demonstrated that the orders arose from domestic violence-related circumstances and that he had willfully violated them by being present near, or contacting, his wife.The Immigration Judge found the petitioner removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), relying on his convictions, the evidentiary record, and his admissions. The judge also denied his application for cancellation of removal and other requested relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, agreeing that the record was sufficient to establish removability even though the actual protection orders were not submitted. The Board concluded that the convictions and supporting documents demonstrated that the violated orders were issued to protect against threats or acts of domestic violence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the government is not required to submit the actual protection orders to establish removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) if the record otherwise clearly and convincingly establishes that the statutory requirements are met. The court found that the evidence—including state statutes, docket reports, charging documents, police reports, and the petitioner’s admissions—was sufficient to show that the protection orders were issued for the purpose of preventing domestic violence and that the petitioner violated their no-contact provisions. The petition for review was denied. View "Tiah v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Haitian citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States was convicted in Florida of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to imprisonment and probation. Following this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, asserting that the conviction constituted an aggravated felony—a crime of violence—under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The individual, represented by counsel, conceded removability before an Immigration Judge and proceeded with applications for asylum and withholding of removal, which the judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the removal decision.After removal, the petitioner submitted pro se motions to the BIA: a motion to reopen proceedings and an emergency stay of removal. The motion to reopen argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge removability, contending that the Florida statute permitted convictions based on recklessness, which did not meet the federal “crime of violence” standard requiring intent. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding the petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive and concluding he was not prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance by counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and legal error. The court held that precedent interpreting both the Armed Career Criminal Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act establishes that Florida’s aggravated assault statute requires at least knowing conduct, not mere recklessness. Thus, a conviction under this statute categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence” for removal purposes, even for convictions predating clarification by the Florida Supreme Court. The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review, concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. View "Senatus v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Bangladesh, who also held Canadian citizenship, resided in New Jersey where he was indicted in 2018 for distributing, storing, and possessing sexually explicit images of children in violation of New Jersey law. He pleaded guilty in 2019 to knowingly storing or maintaining at least 25 items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child using a file-sharing program that made the files available to others. Following his conviction and requirement to register as a sex offender, he was detained by U.S. immigration authorities and charged with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on the grounds of an aggravated felony and as having committed a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge in Richmond, Virginia, concluded that his conviction categorically matched a crime of child abuse under the INA, making him removable. The judge also denied his applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the finding of removability and adopted the immigration judge’s discretionary denials. The petitioner then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit held that the New Jersey statute, as it existed at the time of the conduct, qualifies categorically as a crime of child abuse under the INA because knowingly storing child sexual abuse material on a peer-to-peer file-sharing program creates a reasonable probability of harm to a child. The court denied review of the removability finding. Regarding the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, the Fourth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review those determinations, as they were discretionary merits decisions and did not present questions of law. The petition was therefore denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Uddin v. Blanche" on Justia Law

An American citizen married to a Chinese national with valid H-1B status sought to have his spouse classified as an immediate relative under immigration law, the first step for her to obtain permanent residency. The citizen had a prior conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving a minor, which triggered application of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Under this Act, a U.S. citizen with such a conviction can only sponsor an immediate-relative petition if the Secretary of Homeland Security, in “sole and unreviewable discretion,” determines the citizen poses no risk to the beneficiary. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied both of the citizen’s petitions, finding he failed to show he posed no risk to his spouse.The plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, raising statutory and constitutional challenges to the USCIS decisions. The district court dismissed all but one statutory claim for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Act’s jurisdiction-stripping provisions and the “sole and unreviewable discretion” language. The remaining statutory claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim, with the district court finding that the Adam Walsh Act applies to beneficiaries of any age, not just minors.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review statutory and constitutional claims attacking the USCIS’s denial and the processes used, as Congress clearly barred judicial review of both the decision and the methods for reaching it. The court further held that the one statutory claim they could review failed because the Act unambiguously applies to beneficiaries of any age. The court affirmed dismissal of all claims, either for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim. View "Liu v Mullin" on Justia Law

The defendant entered the United States in 1999 and remained without legal status after his tourist visa expired in 2000. He applied for and received a Washington concealed pistol license in 2019, falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen. He also submitted Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives forms indicating citizenship to register handguns. A series of domestic violence incidents led to multiple restraining orders against him, each including a prohibition on owning or possessing firearms. Law enforcement seized firearms, ammunition, and a silencer from his residence in 2022. The defendant admitted to being a Brazilian citizen and acknowledged that he was not permitted to possess firearms due to his immigration status and domestic violence convictions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss charges on Second Amendment, materiality, and vagueness grounds. The defendant was convicted in a bench trial based on stipulated facts for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition as a noncitizen and as a person under a domestic violence restraining order, making false statements during firearm purchases, falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, and unlawful possession of a firearm silencer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed all convictions. The court held that precedent from United States v. Vazquez-Ramirez controlled challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), confirming the constitutionality of prohibiting firearm possession by noncitizens unlawfully present. Materiality challenges to false statement convictions failed because the Second Amendment does not protect firearm possession by such individuals. The court found that United States v. Rahimi and United States v. VanDyke foreclosed challenges to convictions based on domestic violence restraining orders. The court held that the National Firearms Act’s silencer regulations do not violate the Second Amendment or the Fifth Amendment’s vagueness doctrine. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA V. DEBORBA" on Justia Law

A Kenyan national was served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings in Massachusetts, charged with overstaying his visa. During removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge (IJ), he applied for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming abuse by his father, a member of the Mungiki group in Kenya. The IJ found him credible and determined he suffered past persecution due to his family, but concluded that the presumption of future persecution was rebutted because he was now an adult, no longer under his father's control, and because country conditions in Kenya had changed. The IJ also denied humanitarian asylum and withholding of removal, citing insufficient severity of past harm or likelihood of future harm, and noted that, even if eligible, relief would be denied on discretionary grounds due to the petitioner’s criminal history in the United States.The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal. He then moved for reconsideration, asserting that the BIA overlooked his claims that he reasonably feared persecution by Kenyan officials on account of family status or ethnicity. The BIA granted the motion to reconsider but again dismissed the appeal, finding the past harm occurred only during childhood and upholding that changed country conditions rebutted any presumption of future persecution. It also reaffirmed denial of humanitarian asylum and CAT protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed both BIA decisions. The court held that the BIA’s decisions did not adequately explain whether it addressed the petitioner’s arguments regarding a reasonable fear of future persecution by Kenyan police due to his family or ethnic status. The court vacated the BIA’s orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Muchiri v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Mexican national who had lived in the United States without legal status since infancy faced removal proceedings after being convicted of battery under Illinois law for a violent altercation involving his mother and siblings. He conceded his removability but sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause his U.S. citizen wife exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The record showed his wife had health problems and relied on him financially, but she also had support from nearby family members.An Immigration Judge denied his application, finding him categorically ineligible for cancellation of removal because his battery conviction qualified as a “crime of domestic violence” and because his wife’s hardships, while significant, did not meet the statutory threshold. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the conviction rendered him ineligible and holding that he had waived any challenge to the hardship determination by failing to raise it.He petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for review. The Seventh Circuit applied a highly deferential “substantial evidence” standard to the agency’s factual findings and found no error. The court held that the petitioner’s challenge to the hardship finding was waived and, in any event, the record did not compel a contrary result. The court also held that his conviction for battery under Illinois law, with family members as victims, rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal as a matter of law.In addition to denying the petition for review, the Seventh Circuit imposed a $5,000 sanction on his counsel for submitting briefs containing numerous fabricated citations and factual misrepresentations produced by AI tools, and referred a second attorney involved to the Illinois disciplinary authorities for further investigation. View "Perez-Castillo v Blanche" on Justia Law

A woman and her minor child fled El Salvador for the United States after the woman’s father threatened to kill her, following a long history of severe domestic violence within the family. The woman’s mother was murdered by the father’s foster brother, allegedly at the father’s direction. After the murder, the woman and her siblings reported their suspicions to Salvadoran authorities, but law enforcement did not pursue the accused or investigate the family’s allegations. The woman and her child then received threats from masked men, which she believed were connected to her father. Fearing for their lives, they entered the United States without inspection and applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found the woman credible but denied all relief, concluding she had not established persecution on account of a protected ground—rejecting her claims based on political opinion and proposed particular social groups (PSGs), and also finding no government acquiescence for purposes of CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal, agreeing with the IJ that she had not demonstrated the required nexus between her persecution and any protected ground, and declined to consider some PSG claims, believing they had not been raised before the IJ.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the BIA committed reversible error by failing to consider the merits of her claim based on the PSG “Salvadoran women,” as this group had been properly raised before the IJ. The court granted the petition in part, vacated the removal order, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. However, the court denied the petition regarding all other claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Alvarado-Paz v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in February 2023 after he and his family experienced multiple detentions and beatings by Salvadoran police, allegedly due to suspicions of collaborating with illicit groups. After his mother and sisters were detained, and later upon learning that his partner had also been detained, the petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States.An immigration judge denied the requested relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that decision in July 2024. The petitioner, initially pro se, later retained counsel and, after learning of his partner’s detention, filed a motion to reopen proceedings with the BIA in January 2025. He argued that new evidence warranted reopening and sought equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for such motions, citing diligence in seeking counsel and resource constraints while detained. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, finding the petitioner did not show the requisite diligence or extraordinary circumstances to justify equitable tolling and that much of the new evidence was not previously unavailable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion, as its decision adequately addressed the petitioner’s arguments and applied the correct legal standard for equitable tolling. The court found that the petitioner did not sufficiently demonstrate either due diligence or extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Bonilla-Espinoza v. Blanche" on Justia Law