Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit filed: 1) an order withdrawing the opinion and concurring opinion appearing at 965 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2020), denying the petition for rehearing en banc as moot, and providing that the parties may file petitions for rehearing and hearing en banc in response to the new opinion; 2) a new opinion denying the petitions for review of the BIA's decisions; and 3) a new concurring opinion.The panel held, based on its binding precedent, that the BIA did not err in concluding that petty theft under section 484(a) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen to seek asylum and related relief based on changed country conditions in the Philippines. The panel explained that it need not address the question whether Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga is retroactively applicable in this case and need not apply the Montgomery Ward test to answer that question. View "Silva v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abiel Perez-Perez pled guilty to being an alien in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the district court’s failure to advise him of two elements of that offense: (1) the alien was illegally or unlawfully present in the United States; and (2) the alien knew that he was illegally or unlawfully present. The government conceded that the omission of these elements constituted error that was now plain on appeal. The only dispute was whether Perez satisfied the third and fourth prongs of plain-error review. The Tenth Circuit concluded Perez could not satisfy the third prong because he could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. "Although Perez has a credible claim that, at the time of the offense, he did not know he was unlawfully present in the United States, he has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s error. This is because the context of Perez’s guilty plea makes clear that he pled guilty to avoid mandatory minimum sentences attached to charges the government dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea. Perez fails to show how the district court’s error impacted that choice, and he thus fails to satisfy the third plain-error prong." View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's request for asylum. Petitioner feared religious persecution by gangs if she returned to her home country of El Salvador. Because petitioner has not demonstrated past persecution, and the gangs she fears are not government or government sponsored, the court explained that she bears the burden to show that relocation would not be reasonable. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner could relocate to another part of El Salvador if forced to return. In this case, petitioner worked for months in San Salvador without trouble from gangs. View "Guatemala-Pineda v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner primarily argues that the Board did not adequately consider two declarations indicating that his counsel did not receive certain documents related to the proceedings. The court concluded that these declarations do not sufficiently rebut the presumption that his counsel received the documents the Board sent. Therefore, petitioner's argument that the Board should have reconsidered its decision in light of the declarations fails. Furthermore, petitioner's remaining arguments, which all stem from the alleged nonreceipt of documents and his alleged inability to file a responsive brief, also fail. View "Njilefac v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petition is based on petitioner's fear that, if returned to El Salvador, he would face persecution or torture on account of his membership in a particular social group, defined based on his intellectual disability.The panel concluded that the agency misunderstood petitioner's proposed social group, and thus granted the petition for review with respect to the claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The panel explained that the BIA and IJ treated the term "intellectual disability" as if it were applied to a layperson. However, that term as used in petitioner's application referred to an explicit medical diagnosis with several specific characteristics. Recognized that way, the panel reasoned that the clinical term "intellectual disability" may satisfy the "particularity" and "social distinction" requirements necessary to qualify for asylum and withholding of removal. However, because the IJ did not recognize the proposed social group before her, the panel must remand to the agency for fact-finding on an open record to determine if the group is cognizable. Finally, the panel concluded that denial of CAT relief by the agency was supported by substantial evidence. View "Acevedo Granados v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Appellant's petition for postconviction relief after determining that his stay of adjudication and discharge from probation was not a conviction, holding that Appellant's stay of adjudication was not a conviction.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to domestic assault-intentional infliction of bodily harm. The district court accepted Appellant's plea of guilty and stayed adjudication under the parties' agreement. After Appellant successfully completed and was discharged from probation he received notice that he was scheduled for immigration removal proceedings. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The postconviction court concluded that Appellant had not been convicted of a crime and was therefore not eligible for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of the phrase "a person convicted of a crime" in Minn. Stat. 590.01, subd. 1 means a person who has a conviction under Minnesota law; and (2) Appellant's stay of adjudication did not meet this definition. View "Johnston v. State" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's conclusion that one of petitioner's three convictions rendered petitioner removeable. At issue is petitioner's 2018 conviction for knowingly possessing a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 2-A, in violation of Texas Health & Safety Code 481.1161(a). In this case petitioner possessed MMB-Fubinaca, which, he agrees, is a federally controlled substance. However, Penalty Group 2-A also includes at least one substance that is not federally controlled.The court concluded that petitioner's 2018 conviction did not render him removeable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court explained that the government failed to show that Penalty Group 2-A is divisible. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that Penalty Group 2-A is broader than the federal statute, and "there is no categorical match" between Penalty Group 2-A and its federal counterpart. Here, the parties agree that Penalty Group 2-A criminalizes possession of at least one substance—naphthoylindane—that the federal statute does not mention. The panel declined to terminate petitioner's removal proceedings. Instead, the court remanded for consideration of whether petitioner has shown a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute conduct that falls outside the relevant federal statute. The panel also remanded for consideration of whether petitioner's 2009 and 2013 convictions render him removable, in the event that petitioner succeeds on the realistic-probability inquiry. View "Alejos-Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's 2003 Missouri marijuana conviction is not a categorical match for the corresponding federal offense in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and thus the 2006 conviction for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326 does not qualify as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(O). Therefore, petitioner is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lopez-Chavez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the reinstatement of a 1998 removal order by the DHS and the denial of a motion to reopen the 1998 removal proceedings by the BIA. The court rejected petitioner's contention that his reinstated 1998 removal order was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, because his counsel was ineffective. The court concluded that petitioner's contention is untimely because it was not raised within thirty days of the underlying removal order, as required by 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1). The court also concluded that there is substantial evidence supporting the existence of a prior removal order, and petitioner's reentry was unlawful because he reentered within ten years of his removal without the Attorney General's permission to reapply for admission.The court concluded that the Board correctly determined that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the 1998 proceedings. The court explained that an alien ordinarily has a right to file one motion to reopen within ninety days of a final removal order, but an alien forfeits that right by illegally reentering the country. Petitioner's motion also came well after the expiration of the ninety-day time limit for an alien’s motion. Finally, the court agreed with the Board that current law does not allow for a miscarriage-of-justice exception to the statutory prohibition on reopening a reinstated removal order. View "Gutierrez-Gutierrez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for relief from removal on the grounds of asylum, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not err in affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) decision to deny Petitioner's application.Specifically, the First Circuit held (1) the record did not indicate that Petitioner either faced or would face persecution on the basis of his nationality, his religion, or his political beliefs; and (2) therefore, Petitioner was not able to meet the higher threshold for his claim of withholding of removal and his CAT claim. View "Thile v. Garland" on Justia Law