Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, filed an action in District Court alleging that the BIA's decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) prohibited APA claims that indirectly challenged a removal order. All claims challenging the procedure and substance of agency determinations "inextricably linked" to the order of removal were prohibited by section 1252(a)(5), no matter how the claims were framed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martinez v. Napolitano, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hector Barrera–Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal from the United States. He sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. "Because Congress tightly constrains [the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals'] power to review discretionary aspects of the BIA’s orders of removal, we must dismiss in part his petition for lack of jurisdiction." The Court could, however, review constitutional claims and questions of law involving statutory construction. In this case, Petitioner's eligibility for cancellation of removal hinged on whether he maintained at least ten years of continuous physical presence in this country, as required by the terms of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA relied on a reasonable statutory construction in finding Petitioner failed to satisfy the continuous-presence requirement, the Court denied the remainder of the petition for review. View "Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection at the age of seventeen, sought judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was a refugee under immigration laws because he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In addition, Petitioner was not eligible for relief under the CAT, as he set forth no evidence that there was any prospect he would be tortured if he was returned to El Salvador. View "Perlera-Sola v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) later issued Petitioner a notice to appear in removal proceedings. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for withholding of removal but granted his application for voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err by determining that Petitioner had not been a victim of past persecution in Guatemala; (2) Petitioner's argument that the BIA erred in finding he was not a member of a particular social group was not grounds for granting his petition for review; and (3) imposing a requirement of "social visibility" as to "social groups" did not constitute an arbitrary and capricious agency interpretation. View "Tay-Chan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Erasmo Rojas-Perez (Rojas), the lead petitioner in this case, and his wife, Angelica Garcia-Angeles (Garcia), sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioners, who had entered the United States without inspection, had filed applications for withholding of removal based on their stated belief that if the family returned to Mexico, their son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S., could be kidnapped and held for ransom. The BIA reasoned that Petitioners' stated fear was not properly grounded in their belonging to a discernible social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act because "fear of persecution based on perceived wealth does not constitute a particular social group under the [INA]." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Rojas's petition for review, as the BIA's determinations were based on substantial evidence in the record. View "Rojas-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum, asserting that he had fled his native country due to political persecution. After the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him, Petitioner argued he was the victim of past political persecution and that, if returned to Guatemala, he would be subject to persecution on account of "membership of a particular social group," namely, the group of Guatemalan nationals repatriated from the United States. The immigration judge denied relief, finding that Petitioner was a credible witness but that the facts did not support his asylum application or other claims for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner's request for statutory withholding of removal necessarily failed, as Petitioner did not establish that he would be persecuted based on his "membership in a particular social group" or his "political opinion." View "Escobar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of illicit trafficking - an aggravated felony - and also of an offense under a state law relating to a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Petitioner based on these offenses. Petitioner filed a responsive pleading seeking to terminate the removal proceedings or, in the alternative, to cancel removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's motion to terminate and ordered Petitioner to be removed to Jamaica. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner pled to possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 21a-277(b), that the offense was a subordinate offense constituting "trafficking," and therefore, Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking as defined by federal law. View "James v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) against Petitioner. The notice asserted that Petitioner was removable on three separate grounds - child abuse, crime of violence, and sexual abuse of a minor. An immigration judge (IJ) ruled that Petitioner was removable on all three grounds asserted by DHS, and that, as an aggravated felon, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue was whether the endangerment offense to which Petitioner pled nolo contendere comprised an aggravated felony sexual abuse offense for purposes of the INA. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the BIA's ruling insofar as it held that Petitioner was removable on the grounds that he was convicted of aggravated felony sexual abuse and that he was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal, as Petitioner could not be held to have pled to an offense that fell within the sexual abuse rubric under the INA. View "Campbell v. Holder" on Justia Law

This opinion sets out a procedure for all immigration cases pending in this Court that will enable an interested petition and the Government to evaluate whether remand to the BIA, according to terms specified, is appropriate. View "In the Matter of Immigration" on Justia Law

Klene, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for U.S. citizenship. USCIS denied the application after concluding that Klene’s marriage to a U.S. citizen had been fraudulent. Klene asked a district court for relief under 8 U.S.C.1421(c), which allows a judge to make an independent decision about an alien’s entitlement to be naturalized. USCIS opened removal proceedings. The court dismissed Klene’s suit, based 8 U.S.C. 1429, which provides: “[N]o application for naturalization shall be considered by the Attorney General if there is pending against the applicant a removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act.” USCIS acts as the Attorney General’s surrogate. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. While a court cannot order the Attorney General to naturalize an alien, it can enter a declaratory judgment of entitlement to citizenship without violating section. A judgment declaring that Klene’s marriage was bona fide would bring the removal proceeding to a prompt close. This approach preserves the alien’s entitlement under section1421(c) to an independent judicial decision while respecting the limit that section 1429 places on the Attorney General’s powers. View "Klene v. Napolitano" on Justia Law