Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Judith Jeltsje Pietersen, a Dutch citizen, and her fiancé, Daniel Gerhard Brown, an American citizen, sought to obtain a visa for Pietersen to enter the United States so they could marry. Pietersen had previously traveled to the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program but was denied entry in February 2020 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for alleged unlawful employment. Pietersen and Brown applied for a K-1 visa, but consular officers denied the applications, citing willful misrepresentation of a material fact under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).The appellants filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of State, challenging the visa denials and the guidance in the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). They argued that the consular officers failed to properly review Pietersen’s applications and that the "reason to believe" standard used to determine inadmissibility was contrary to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the consular nonreviewability doctrine barred the claims and that the claims were otherwise meritless.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded the case. The court held that the consular nonreviewability doctrine did not bar the appellants' Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim for prospective relief. The court expressed doubts about the viability of the State Department's "reason to believe" standard and vacated the District Court’s alternative holding based on 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether the INA authorizes the challenged FAM guidance. View "Pietersen v. United States Department of State" on Justia Law

The Texas Attorney General alleged that Annunciation House, a nonprofit organization in El Paso, was unlawfully harboring illegal aliens. The Attorney General sought to examine the organization's records and initiate quo warranto proceedings, which could lead to the revocation of its charter. Annunciation House, which provides shelter to immigrants and refugees, was served with a records request by state officials, who demanded immediate compliance. Annunciation House sought legal relief, arguing that the request violated its constitutional rights.The 205th Judicial District Court in El Paso County granted a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction against the Attorney General's records request. The court also denied the Attorney General's motion for leave to file a quo warranto action, ruling that the statutes authorizing the records request were unconstitutional and that the allegations of harboring illegal aliens did not constitute a valid basis for quo warranto. The court further held that the statutes were preempted by federal law and violated the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case on direct appeal. The court held that the trial court erred in its constitutional rulings and that the Attorney General has the constitutional authority to file a quo warranto action. The court emphasized that it was too early to express a view on the merits of the underlying issues and that the usual litigation process should unfold. The court also held that the statutes authorizing the records request were not facially unconstitutional and that the trial court's injunction against the Attorney General's records request was improper. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "PAXTON v. ANNUNCIATION HOUSE, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) rule that authorized state licenses for two residential facilities where the federal government detained mothers and children after their illegal entry into the United States. The plaintiffs, including detained mothers and Grassroots Leadership, Inc., sought to prohibit the detention of children at these facilities, arguing that the rule was invalid under state law. However, by the time the case reached the court of appeals, all the mothers and children had been released from the facilities.The trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction filed by the department and the facility operators, eventually ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by declaring the rule invalid and enjoining the department from granting licenses under it. The Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were moot since they were no longer detained. However, the court of appeals proceeded to address the merits of the case by invoking the "public-interest exception" to mootness and held the rule invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Texas courts are not constitutionally authorized to adjudicate moot cases, even if they raise questions of considerable public importance. The court emphasized that mootness is a constitutional limitation on judicial power, and there is no "public-interest exception" to mootness in Texas. Consequently, the court reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding its jurisdiction, vacated the judgment on the merits, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES v. GRASSROOTS LEADERSHIP, INC" on Justia Law

Arsen Sarkisov, an alien unlawfully present in the United States, was issued a final deportation order by an immigration judge. Over six years later, Sarkisov moved to reopen his case, but the immigration judge denied the motion. Sarkisov then appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which also rejected his claim. In 2023, Sarkisov appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and requested a stay of the deportation order during the appeal. The United States did not oppose the stay request, and the case was paused for almost a year while Sarkisov attempted to negotiate with the government. When negotiations failed, the litigation resumed, and Sarkisov's motion for a stay was considered.The immigration judge initially denied Sarkisov's motion to reopen his case, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision. Sarkisov then appealed to the Sixth Circuit, seeking a stay of removal during the appeal process. The United States did not oppose the stay request, but the case was paused for nearly a year due to ongoing negotiations, which ultimately failed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed Sarkisov's motion for a stay of removal. The court applied the traditional test for a stay, as outlined in Nken v. Holder, which requires the applicant to show a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm without a stay. Sarkisov failed to address the merits of his appeal or provide reasons for irreparable harm, leading the court to deny his motion. The court emphasized that the burden of removal alone does not constitute irreparable injury and that the public interest favors prompt execution of removal orders. Consequently, the motion for a stay of removal was denied. View "Sarkisov v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nakia Courtney Hamilton, a Jamaican citizen, was ordered removed from the United States in 2017 following a conviction for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. Hamilton, who was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2009, has filed three motions to reopen his removal proceedings. His most recent motion sought to apply for a waiver of the immigration consequences of his conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h).The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Hamilton’s third motion to reopen, finding it untimely and procedurally barred. Hamilton argued that the procedural limitations should be equitably tolled based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which held that a notice to appear must be a single document containing all required information to trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that Niz-Chavez did not affect Hamilton’s eligibility for a § 1182(h) waiver and thus did not justify reopening the proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court found that the stop-time rule in § 1182(h) is triggered by the initiation of removal proceedings, not by the issuance of a compliant notice to appear as required by § 1229(a). The court determined that Hamilton’s removal proceedings were validly initiated when the Department of Homeland Security filed the notice to appear with the immigration court, regardless of whether it included the date and time of the hearing. Consequently, the court held that Hamilton was not eligible for a § 1182(h) waiver and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to reopen. The petition for review was denied. View "Hamilton v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A Russian citizen, Diana Avdeeva, married a U.S. citizen and applied for lawful permanent-resident status, which was granted on a conditional basis. She and her husband later filed a petition to remove the conditional status, but USCIS did not act on it within the required timeframe. After their divorce, Avdeeva requested the petition be converted to a waiver petition. She then applied for naturalization, but USCIS denied her petition, terminated her permanent-resident status, and placed her in removal proceedings. Avdeeva sued USCIS for failing to adjudicate her naturalization application within the statutory period.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts remanded the case to USCIS based on a settlement agreement, which required USCIS to terminate removal proceedings, approve her petition, and conduct a new naturalization interview. Avdeeva was naturalized, and she dismissed her other lawsuit. She then sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), but the district court denied her motion, suggesting she was not a "prevailing party" and that awarding fees would be unjust due to the settlement terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Avdeeva was not a "prevailing party" under EAJA because the change in her legal status was not "court-ordered" but rather a result of the settlement agreement. The court noted that the district court's remand order did not resolve the merits of the case or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, thus lacking the necessary judicial imprimatur. Consequently, Avdeeva was not entitled to attorney's fees. View "Avdeeva v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Sotir Libarov, a Bulgarian citizen, applied for lawful permanent resident status in the United States based on his marriage to Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. USCIS interviewed both separately and concluded that the marriage was a sham, denying Libarov's application in June 2022. Libarov then submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking documents related to himself. ICE initially routed the request to USCIS, but Libarov clarified he wanted documents from ICE. By November 2022, having received no response, Libarov filed a lawsuit against both ICE and USCIS.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Libarov's claims against USCIS and later granted summary judgment for ICE on most issues. The court ruled that Libarov could not seek declaratory relief solely for delayed FOIA disclosure and that FOIA provided an adequate remedy, precluding his APA claim. However, the court ordered ICE to disclose portions of the withheld document containing basic personal information about Libarov.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that Libarov was not entitled to declaratory relief for the delayed FOIA response, as the agency had eventually conducted an appropriate search and provided the requested documents. The court also upheld the district court's decision to withhold parts of the document under FOIA's exemption 7(A), which protects information related to ongoing law enforcement proceedings. Finally, the appellate court confirmed that FOIA provides an adequate remedy, thus barring Libarov's APA claim. View "Libarov v ICE" on Justia Law

John Doe, using multiple aliases, had a long history with U.S. immigration authorities dating back to 1985. He was twice caught trying to enter the U.S. with fraudulent documents and was deported. In 1988, he was found in Texas and deported again. In 2018, he was detained in Florida, and despite a final deportation order, he refused to cooperate with immigration officials, leading to his indictment on three counts of willfully failing to leave the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a)(1).The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Doe's request for a jury instruction that would require the government to prove he had been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to convict him under § 1253(a)(1). The court also denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the same grounds. Doe was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 51 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that § 1253(a)(1) does not require a noncitizen to have been lawfully admitted to the U.S. to be subject to its penalties. The court found that the statutory text and context did not support Doe's interpretation that only admitted noncitizens could be penalized under § 1253(a)(1). The court affirmed the district court's decisions, upholding Doe's convictions and sentence. View "USA v. Doe" on Justia Law

Rajanbir Singh-Kar, a citizen of India, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. He claimed that members of a rival political party attacked him twice due to his political activities and that a police officer slapped him, threatened to jail him, and threw him out of the police station when he tried to report the attacks.An immigration judge (IJ) denied Singh-Kar’s application, finding that his testimony regarding a single incident of police misconduct was insufficient to establish that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The IJ also found inconsistencies between Singh-Kar’s application and his testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Singh-Kar’s evidence was insufficient. The BIA also noted that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of Singh-Kar’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Singh-Kar’s testimony about a single incident of police misconduct and general country conditions evidence did not compel a different result. The court also found that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the Second Circuit denied Singh-Kar’s petition for review. View "Singh-Kar v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Igor Quinn-Goncalves, an undocumented native and citizen of Brazil, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that upheld an immigration judge's order for his removal from the United States. Quinn-Goncalves, who has been detained throughout the relevant period, acknowledged that his petition was filed late, arriving at the clerk's office three days after the deadline. His wife sent the petition via UPS on the last permissible day, following incorrect advice from the clerk's office that mailing by the deadline was sufficient.The BIA had previously denied Quinn-Goncalves's appeal of the immigration judge's removal order. The immigration judge had ordered his removal based on his undocumented status. Quinn-Goncalves then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but his petition was not filed within the required 30-day period after the BIA's final order of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the petition due to its untimeliness. The court emphasized that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(2)(A)(i), a petition for review must be received by the clerk within the statutory deadline to be considered timely. The court rejected Quinn-Goncalves's argument that mailing the petition within the deadline should suffice, distinguishing his case from the precedent set in Houston v. Lack, which applied a mailbox rule for pro se prisoners. The court concluded that it could not extend the filing deadline under Rule 26(b)(2) and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Goncalves v. Bondi" on Justia Law