Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

After petitioner prevailed on an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release from federal immigration detention, he sought to recover attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Fourth Circuit has previously held, pursuant to O'Brien v. Moore, 395 F.3d 499, 508 (4th Cir. 2005), that the Act does not apply to a habeas proceeding seeking release from criminal detention. The court held that the same is true for habeas proceedings seeking release from civil detention. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees because the Act does not provide a basis for petitioner to recover attorney's fees. View "Obando-Segura v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal. At issue is whether the government must carry its burden of proving that a returning LPR meets one of the six exceptions under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C) before it paroles that LPR into the United States under section 1182(d)(5).The panel deferred to a precedential opinion issued by the BIA, Matter of Valenzuela-Felix, 26 I. & N. Dec. 53 (BIA 2012), and held that the government may exercise its discretion to parole a returning LPR into the United States for prosecution without carrying its burden of proving that the LPR falls within one of the six exceptions. The government must, however, carry its burden of proof in subsequent removal proceedings if any ensue. In this case, when petitioner arrived at LAX, the CBP exercised its discretion to parole him into the United States for prosecution; the panel explained that it does not second-guess the CBP's decision to do so; petitioner then pleaded guilty to a crime involving moral turpitude; and, at subsequent removal proceedings, the government properly relied on petitioner's conviction to carry its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he could be regarded as an alien seeking an admission into the United States under section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). Therefore, petitioner was properly subjected to a charge of inadmissibility. View "Vazquez Romero v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit dismissed the petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C) based on lack of jurisdiction. Under section 1182(a)(2)(C)(i), a non citizen is inadmissible to the United States if "the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe" that the noncitizen is or has been either "an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance," or "a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others" in such trafficking.The court agreed with the BIA that section 1182(a)(2)(C)'s "reason to believe" language requires a finding of probable cause. In this case, the court concluded that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the BIA's conclusion that there was probable cause to believe petitioner was involved in illicit drug trafficking. Therefore, petitioner is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(2)(C) and thus the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for review. View "Rojas v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's final order affirming the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner alleged that the IJ and the BIA made several legal errors in their consideration of his claims for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court held that IJs have a legal duty to develop the record, which takes on particular importance in pro se cases, and that the IJ in this case erred in failing to discharge that duty. The court also concluded that the BIA erred in refusing to consider petitioner's particular social groups based on Matter of W-Y-C- and in mischaracterizing his claim. In regard to the CAT claim, and pursuant to Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968 (4th Cir. 2019), the court agreed with petitioner that the BIA erred in failing to consider and aggregate the risk of torture from different sources. Furthermore, neither the IJ nor the BIA duly considered all of the record evidence relevant to whether the Salvadoran government would consent to or acquiescence in torture. Accordingly, the court vacated petitioner's final order of removal and remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand the case to the IJ for further fact-finding and reconsideration. View "Arevalo Quintero v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner's CAT claim was based on the physical abuse she experienced by her former domestic partner in Jamaica.The panel held that the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that petitioner will suffer future torture if returned to Jamaica. In this case, a Jamaican court issued a protective order and the former partner has left her household. The panel also held that the IJ appropriately considered all of petitioner's evidence, including her country reports and whether she could safely relocate if returned to Jamaica. The panel explained that the circumstances of Jamaican women in general do not vitiate the agency's specific findings as to petitioner's situation with her former partner. While country conditions include generalized domestic violence against women, the panel stated that this does not compel a conclusion that petitioner will more likely than not be subjected to violence from her former partner or his associates. View "Dawson v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant was found in the United States after having previously been removed under the expedited removal procedure of 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). Defendant was charged with reentry without permission after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a).The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, rejecting defendant's claim that his 2016 expedited removal order was "fundamentally unfair" for lack of representation by counsel during the removal proceeding, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and therefore was invalid. The court concluded that the Due Process Clause did not entitle defendant to counsel when apprehended at the border and promptly removed. Furthermore, the court rejected defendant's contention that the APA requires — as an additional procedural right in removal proceedings — that the alien have the opportunity to obtain counsel in expedited removal proceedings under section 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review challenging the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing an immigration judge's (IJ) grant of Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction.In reversing the IJ's decision, the BIA concluded that Petitioner had not met the required "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and ignored its own precedent when it overturned the IJ's grant of his application for cancellation of removal. The denied in part and dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the BIA did not commit legal error in concluding that Petitioner had not met his burden to show that his removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his family; (2) as to Petitioner's argument that the BIA's decision was legally unsound, his claim failed on the merits; and (3) this Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner's remaining arguments. View "Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland" on Justia Law

Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the U.S, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988. Lower courts then understood that conviction to be an “aggravated felony” subjecting a noncitizen to removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Palomar-Santiago was removed following a hearing and a waiver of his right to appeal. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the U.S and indicted for unlawful reentry after removal. Section 1326, criminalizing unlawful reentry, provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that “any administrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, “the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and “the order was fundamentally unfair.” Palomar-Santiago argued that his prior removal order was invalid in light of the 2004 “Leocal” holding, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the charges.A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. Each of the statutory requirements of section 1326(d) is mandatory; defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. The first two requirements are not satisfied just because a noncitizen was removed for an offense that should not have rendered him removable. An immigration judge’s error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen’s failure to comply with a mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review, and then judicial review if necessary, could fix that error. Section 1326(d) unambiguously forecloses Palomar-Santiago’s interpretation. View "United States v. Palomar-Santiago" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government in an action challenging USCIS's decision determining that plaintiff was ineligible for adjustment of status due to his membership in a Tier III terrorist organization—the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—and his personal engagement in terrorist activity.The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff's inadmissibility under the terrorism bar was not actually litigated during the asylum proceeding, and rejected the issue preclusion claim. The court held that an organization engages in terrorist activity for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) when its members perpetrate terrorist activity and its leadership authorizes such conduct expressly or tacitly. In this case, as applied to plaintiff and the BNP, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The court also concluded that plaintiff's vagueness challenge to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b) & (VI) fails at the outset, because he intentionally relinquished any challenge to the definition of "terrorist activity" in the district court. Finally, the court applied the "exceedingly deferential" standard of review under section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act and held that the USCIS's conclusion that the BNP authorized its members' terrorist activity—and thus qualified as a Tier III terrorist organization—is not arbitrary and capricious. View "Islam v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that petitioner's conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering plainly constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(D). Section 1101(a)(43)(D) defines "aggravated felony" to include those offenses that are "described in section 1956 of Title 18 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) . . . if the amount of funds exceeded $10,000." The court concluded that this provision applies here because petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), and the funds involved well exceeded $10,000. The court need not decide petitioner's contention that section 1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court found petitioner's remaining contentions were either meritless or unexhausted. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part his petition for review. View "Maniar v. Garland" on Justia Law