Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff is a foreign worker hired by defendant Alco Harvesting LLC to work at farms owned by defendant and appellant Betteravia Farms. He later brought employment claims against appellants. Alco moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement presented to and signed by Plaintiff at his orientation. The trial court found the agreement void and denied the motion. It considered arbitration a “material term and condition” of Plaintiff’s employment and as such, a job requirement that Alco should have disclosed during the H-2A certification process.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Alco’s arbitration agreement required Plaintiff to forfeit his right to a jury trial in “any claim, dispute and/or controversy that [any] Employee may have against the Company . . . arising from, relating to or having any relationship or connection whatsoever with [or to the] Employee’s . . . employment by, or other association with the Company . . . .” The arbitration agreement also prohibited him from participating in any class action claims against Alco. Thus, the court considered the relinquishing of these rights as “material terms and conditions” of his employment. View "State of Cal. v. Alco Harvest" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed the petition for review brought by Petitioner, a Kenyan national, of the decisions of an immigration judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding whether Petitioner was properly served by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) with the notice of its intent to revoke his visa petition and the ensuing official revocation, holding that there was no error.In the wake of his petition to the First Circuit challenging the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's decision denying his requested adjustment of status, USCIS sent a notice of its intent to revoke its approval of Petitioner's visa petition. At issue in this case was whether the IJ and BIA erred in finding that USCIS properly served Petitioner with its intent to revoke his visa. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the agencies properly determined that notice was properly and lawfully accomplished based on applicable regulations and USCIS policy. View "Manguriu v. Garland" on Justia Law

After Petitioner illegally reentered the United States, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstated the removal order previously entered against him. Petitioner expressed fear of returning to his native country and was placed in withholding only proceedings. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief, and Petitioner petitioned the court for review within 30 days of the Board’s decision.   The Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition. The court held that the INA deprives the court of jurisdiction to resolve Petitioner’s petition for judicial review. The court wrote that Petitioner did not file his petition within 30 days of any final order of removal, and precedent dictates that the statutory filing deadline is jurisdictional. Further, the court noted that the pendency of his withholding-only proceedings did not extend his time to file. So his petition for review was untimely. View "Jose Martinez v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny Petitioner's application for withholding of removal and asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, conceded that he was removable but applied for asylum and claimed withholding of removal based on his membership in two particular social groups. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications and ordered him removed. The BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, and for the same reasons, Petitioner also failed to establish that he was entitled to withholding of removal. View "Hernandez-Mendez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a review of an April 20, 2022, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering her removal and denying her application for cancellation of removal after determining she had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). That conviction, for abuse of a corpse in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated (“ACA”) Section 5-60-101, stemmed from concealing her child’s body in a closet after he was murdered. In her petition for review, Petitioner argued that the BIA and IJ erred because her conviction under ACA Section 5-60-101 is not categorically a CIMT.   The Second Circuit granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s order of removal and remanded. The court explained that the language of ACA Section 5-60-101(a)(1) allows someone to be convicted if he or she knowingly “removes” or “disinters” a corpse, no matter the reason and without regard to whether it is done in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. The court explained that the broad language makes it clear that one can be convicted under the statute for conduct that is not “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Thus, because ACA Section 5-60-101 criminalizes conduct that is not invariably vile or depraved, a conviction under the statute cannot categorically be considered a CIMT. The BIA did not conduct an elements-based categorical inquiry. Instead, it applied an inapposite “realistic probability” test. View "Giron-Molina v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala. He says that from elementary school through adulthood, his classmates and coworkers touched his “private parts” and subjected him to homophobic slurs because he is bisexual. He left university because of verbal abuse, and he quit his job at a restaurant after his coworkers harassed him. But he testified that he never suffered a physical injury, and he never reported the harassment to the police or to authorities at his school or workplace. After his friend was murdered, Petitioner left for the United States. He was detained at the U.S. border after he entered without inspection. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protections under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied his application, and he appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review of the denial of his application for asylum.   The Eighth Circuit denied the petition, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination. The court explained that Petitioner cited evidence of impunity for crimes against transgender women and alleged that police regularly extort and harass male and transgender sex workers. But as the BIA reasoned, he is neither a transgender woman nor a sex worker. He also testified that a gay man was once beheaded when Petitioner was a child. But there is no record evidence that gay men are regularly killed in Guatemala such that there is a pattern or practice of it. So a reasonable fact-finder could adopt the BIA’s implicit position that Petitioner did not show a pattern or practice of persecution. View "Robinson Juarez-Vicente v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States on Petitioner's claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and to the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SCSD) on Petitioner's claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act (RHA), 29 U.S.C. 794, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment as to Petitioner's FTCA claims.Petitioner filed this action setting forth FTCA claims against the United States based on the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected while he was in immigration custody, as well as claims brought under the RHA and the ADA based on the alleged discrimination against him owing to his disability during his detention. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The First Circuit vacated the judgment in part, holding that the district court (1) erred in granting summary judgment to the United States as it pertained to Petitioner's FTCA claims; but (2) did not err in awarding summary judgment to SCSD on Petitioner's RHA and ADA claims. View "Thiersaint v. Dep't of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petitions seeking judicial review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) - one affirming an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the other denying Petitioners' motion to reopen their proceedings, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief.Petitioners applied for relief from removal based on China's politics, specifically persecution by Chinese officials seeking to enforce China's Family Planning Policy, which was in effect when Petitioners first entered the United States. The IJ denied Petitioners' application, concluding that they failed to meet their burden of proof. The BIA dismissed Petitioners' appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petitions for review, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the agency's decisions in this case. View "M.S.C. v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a twenty-three-year-old Guatemalan citizen who fears returning to his home country. Petitioner believed that, due to the large and interconnected network of gang members in the country, nowhere in Guatemala was safe for him. At age seventeen, Petitioner left Guatemala and came to the United States. The Attorney General initiated removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He claimed that he was persecuted on account of his membership in the social group “Guatemalan children who are witnesses of gang crime.” The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied each of his applications. The BIA rejected Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal because Petitioner failed to identify a cognizable particular social group. Specifically, the BIA concluded that his proposed group lacked particularity because the term “children” is “vague and amorphous,” and the broader group of “witnesses to gang crime” lacked social distinction. Petitioner appealed.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained Petitioner’s proposed social group fails for lack of social distinction. The court explained that if it grants Petitioner the benefit of the broader definition of “children,” the proposed social group is, in effect, all Guatemalan “witnesses to gang crime.” Petitioner did not introduce evidence establishing that Guatemalan society “in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular characteristic” of gang crime witnesses as a distinct group. Accordingly, the court explained that because Petitioner failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group, the BIA did not err in denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. View "Cesar Pacheco-Mota v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

The San Bernardino County District Attorney (the District Attorney) appealed a trial court order granting Karla Coca’s petition under Penal Code section 1473.7 to vacate a misdemeanor conviction. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded Coca failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that “the conviction . . . being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization.” The Court accordingly reversed the order. View "California v. Coca" on Justia Law