Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States illegally, conceded removability but requested cancellation of removal. An immigration judge held that Petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his Maine assault conviction was not a “crime of domestic violence.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit initially denied Petitioner’s petition for review. Petitioner then petitioned for rehearing, presenting a developed argument based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder. The First Circuit granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded, holding that Moncrieffe controls in this case and that, in accordance with Moncrieffe, Petitioner was not convicted of a “crime of violence.” View "Sauceda v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1994, Petitioner crossed the U.S.-Mexican border in violation of United States law. The day after he entered the country, Petitioner was served an Order to Show Cause charging him as being deportable. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Petitioner deportable. Petitioner later filed a second motion to reopen the deportation proceedings. The motion was granted. In 2014, Petitioner applied for suspension of deportation and voluntary departure, arguing that he was eligible for suspension of deportation because the law in effect in 1994 required a noncitizen to be continuously physically present in the United States for seven years before applying for suspension of deportation and that he easily met this requirement. An IJ concluded that the so-called “stop-time” rule applied retroactively to Petitioner because his deportation proceedings remained pending on the date the stop-time rule went into effect and that the stop-time rule cut off Petitioner’s physical presence after one day, rendering him ineligible for suspension of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s interpretation of the stop-time rule was reasonable and that the BIA properly applied the stop-time rule to Petitioner. View "Santos-Quiroa v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was ordered removed in 2002. After Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed his removal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA rejected. More than a decade later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reconsider. The BIA denied that motion as well. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s second motion to reconsider, holding that the BIA did not err in concluding that the circumstances of Petitioner’s case were not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant an equitable exception to the time and number bars applicable to Petitioner’s motion. View "Omar v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner was issued a notice to appear and conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, concluding (1) Petitioner failed to carry his burden to show either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and (2) Petitioner had not established that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Chen v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Elena Granada-Rubio and two of her sons illegally entered the United States. Granada-Rubio applied for asylum for herself and her two sons, as well as withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Granada-Rubio’s application for relief and ordered her and her sons removed to El Salvador. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Granada-Rubio’s petition for review, holding (1) the IJ and the BIA were warranted in finding that Granada-Rubio had not been persecuted based on her membership in a legally cognizable particular social group; (2) because Granada-Rubio did not qualify for asylum, she also did not qualify for withholding of removal; and (3) Granada-Rubio’s claim for protection under the CAT failed as well. View "Granada-Rubio v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1996, Petitioner, a citizen and native of the Dominican Republic, obtained permanent resident status after marrying an American citizen. In 2008, Petitioner and his wife divorced. In 2011, Petitioner was served with a notice to appear. Petitioner sought relief from removal in the form of an adjustment of status from conditional permanent resident to permanent resident. In addition, Petitioner asked for a waiver of the usual requirement to present his status-change request jointly with his spouse. The Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Petitioner removed, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish that he had entered into his marriage in good faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s decision in its entirety. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the decisions of both the IJ and the BIA concluding that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof that he married in good faith. View "Valdez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

M&K Engineering, Inc. filed an I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker for its employee. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) initially approved the visa petition. The Director of the USCIS Texas Service Center subsequently revoked the approval of the visa petition. M&K’s owner Henry Bernardo administratively appealed the revocation decision. The USCIS Administrative Appeals Office affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal. Bernardo, as owner of M&K, then filed a complaint in the Massachusetts federal district court challenging the revocation of the visa petition approval. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that 8 U.S.C. 1252(1)(2)(B)(ii), which bars judicial review of the Attorney General’s and the Secretary of Homeland Security’s discretionary decisions under Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, applies to the revocation of visa petition approvals under 8 U.S.C. 1155. View "Bernardo v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Octavio Gutierrez-Orozco (Gutierrez), a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States illegally. Gutierrez insisted he entered the United States in March 1996. He remembered that date because his wife, who remained in Mexico, was pregnant with the second of their four children, who was born in September 1996. He claimed to have lived in the United States continuously since then, except for a brief, two-month trip back to Mexico in mid-1999 when his wife was ill, after which border patrol twice hindered his reentry. His wife joined him here sometime in 2000. Gutierrez’s immigration troubles began in February 2008, when a domestic violence incident with his teenage son led to a simple assault conviction. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Gutierrez conceded removability but requested cancellation of removal or, in the alternative, voluntary departure. The IJ conducted a hearing and concluded Gutierrez was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he did not demonstrate a ten-year continuous physical presence in the United States from April 1, 1998, to April 1, 2008; good moral character for that time period; and an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also denied voluntary departure because Gutierrez failed to maintain good moral character during the relevant time frame and, alternatively, as an exercise of discretion. Gutierrez appealed to the BIA for relief from the IJ’s decision. The BIA denied relief, agreeing with the IJ. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Gutierrez-Orozco v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, was issued a notice to appear. Petitioner conceded removability and sought withholding of removal based on race, nationality, and membership in a particular social group. As to his claim regarding membership in a particular social group, Petitioner wrote that he would be harassed by gang members to join them if he returned to Honduras. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal and Petitioner’s subsequent motion to reconsider. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that because the new arguments raised in Petitioner’s motion to reconsider were previously available but not previously asserted, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reconsider. View "Hurtado v. Lynch" on Justia Law

The government initiated deportation proceedings against Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident who was convicted of a removable offense. Petitioner filed an N-600 application for citizenship with U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) claiming that he derived citizenship from his father’s naturalization and therefore could not be deported. USCIS denied the application. An immigration judge upheld the decision and ordered Petitioner removed to Jamaica. Petitioner appealed, arguing that his parents were common law spouses in Jamaica and legally separated within the meaning of former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act when they ceased cohabitating, and therefore, Petitioner, as a child, had derived citizenship from the naturalization of his father. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the removal order, determining that Petitioner had not proven that Jamaica recognized common-law marriage at the time of his birth and that the cessation of cohabitation did not qualify as a legal separation. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner’s claim of citizenship under former section 321(a)(3) failed because he could not prove his parents were in a legally recognized relationship from which they could legally separate. View "Thompson v. Lynch" on Justia Law