Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's final order of removal denying petitioner's application to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident based on his material support to a terrorist organization. Petitioner argued that his $100 payment to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia was made under duress and was insignificant. The court held, however, that binding precedent, Alturo v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 716 F.3d 1310, where the BIA reasonably concluded that the statutory bar does not exempt material support provided to a terrorist organization under duress, foreclosed petitioner's duress argument. The court also held that the unambiguous text of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI) foreclosed petitioner's claim that the payment was insignificant. In this case, because petitioner gave money to known terrorists, he afforded "funds," and thus afforded "material support." View "Hincapie-Zapata v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of an IJ's order of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. The panel held that petitioner failed to show a well founded fear of persecution based on a protected ground.In this case, petitioner was not credible because of his inconsistent statements about why he left Brazil and the BIA reasonably found it implausible that petitioner randomly encountered General Kangama’s nephew at a Brazilian bus stop after only a few days in the country. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's decision that petitioner did not rehabilitate his testimony with sufficient corroborating evidence, and the BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence petitioner provided was entitled to limited weight. Furthermore, the evidence does not meet the high threshold of establishing that it is more likely than not that petitioner will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. Finally, petitioner's due process rights were not violated based on transcription issues and a credible fear review hearing. View "Mukulumbutu v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Government challenges the district court's preliminary injunction entered in response to plaintiffs' claims that conditions at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center, where they were detained, placed them at unconstitutional risk of contracting COVID-19. After oral argument, 38 detainees had tested positive for COVID-19, over 300 were awaiting test results, and 9 had been hospitalized.The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part the preliminary injunction order, holding that the district court was permitted to order the reduction of Adelanto's population, which may have required the release of some detainees, if such a remedy was necessary to cure the alleged constitutional violations. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing some form of preliminary injunctive relief in response to plaintiffs' due process claims. The panel explained that, in light of the district court's factual findings which the Government has not shown to be clearly erroneous, the conditions at Adelanto in April 2020 violated detainees' due process right to reasonable safety where Adelanto was so crowded that social distancing to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus was impossible, detainees had inadequate access to masks, guards were not required to wear masks, there was not enough soap or hand sanitizer to go around, detainees were responsible for cleaning the facility with only dirty towels and dirty water, detainees were compelled to sleep with less than six feet of distance between them, and not all new arrivals were being properly quarantined or tested. The panel stated that the Government was aware of the risks and its inadequate response reflected a reckless disregard for detainee safety. Therefore, the district court rightly concluded that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits. Furthermore, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent relief given COVID-19's high mortality rate, and the equities and public interest tipped in plaintiffs' favor. The panel further held that the district court did not err by provisionally certifying a class of all Adelanto detainees. In light of the changed circumstances at Adelanto since the preliminary injunction was entered, the panel vacated in part and remanded in part for the district court to address the current circumstances. View "Hernandez Roman v. Wolf" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' 8 U.S.C. 1503 claim and motion to reinstate or refile the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims.The court held that plaintiffs forfeited their claim that the time bar in Gonzalez v. Limon, 926 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2019), should not apply and that the APA claims should be restored because section 1503 is not an adequate remedy for the denial of their visas. The court has previously held that section 1503 supplied "an adequate alternative remedy" for challenges to failed passport applications, and the fact that plaintiffs allowed the limitations period to run does not make section 1503 inadequate. Therefore, plaintiffs' section 1503 claim is time-barred under Gonzalez and the district court properly dismissed it; the time bar did not make plaintiffs' section 1503 remedy inadequate and hence did not require the district court to reinstate the APA claims; and because the APA claims would not have survived a renewed motion to dismiss, any amendment to the complaint would have been futile. View "Martinez v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

Jimenez-Aguilar, a 14-year-old citizen of Honduras, entered the U.S. without inspection. In 2014, he was arrested for domestic assault. Jimenez-Aguilar sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his spouse and children, all U.S. citizens, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D). He obtained modifications of criminal convictions that made such relief unavailable. An IJ nonetheless denied his request, finding that Jimenez-Aguilar had not shown “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” The BIA rejected Jimenez-Aguilar’s contentions that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by discouraging him from seeking asylum and that the IJ should have notified him that asylum or withholding were possible. A regulation requires an IJ to provide such notice when “an alien expresses fear of persecution or harm." Jimenez-Aguilar alerted the IJ that he fears vicious criminal gangs and stated two of his cousins and an uncle had been killed by gangs; his mother had obtained asylum because of gang violence. The BIA found that Jimenez-Aguilar “had a reasonable opportunity to apply for asylum” without the need for a warning.The Seventh Circuit remanded. The regulation does not ask whether an alien had a “reasonable opportunity” to seek asylum without advice from the IJ. Jimenez-Aguilar needed only to express fear of persecution or harm of the type that could render him eligible for asylum or withholding of removal; he did not need to express his fear in a way that would make his eligibility for such relief “apparent.” View "Jimenez-Aguilar v. Barr" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal is what effect, if any, a guilty plea has on later denaturalization proceedings. In this case, defendant had pleaded guilty to violating and conspiring to violate Iraqi sanctions and to misusing his organization's tax exempt status and omitting relevant, material information from tax forms. Eight years after pleading guilty and eighteen years after first becoming a citizen, the government commenced proceedings to denaturalize defendant. The district court agreed with the government that defendant's failure to disclose his criminal activities called for denaturalization.The Eighth Circuit held that all three judicial estoppel factors favored applying the doctrine: first, the court stated that defendant's current position is clearly inconsistent with the one from his criminal proceeding; second, the district court had to accept the plea's factual basis, including defendant's statements during the plea colloquy; and third, defendant would derive an unfair advantage if he were allowed to change his position now. Therefore, the court cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider defendant's lack-of-knowledge defense. Finally, the court rejecting defendant's defense of laches because the doctrine of laches does not apply to the United States when it is acting in its sovereign capacity. View "United States v. Hamed" on Justia Law

Mirambeaux, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1999. In 2008, Mirambeaux pled guilty to the distribution of a controlled dangerous substance. In 2018, he was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), for that conviction, and under 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an aggravated felon. Mirambeaux applied for withholding of removal but declined to seek protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Mirambeaux argued that he fears returning to the Dominican Republic, citing the murders of three friends over the last 10 years. He was not able to identify a specific person or group he feared, and referenced “[c]rime in general.” Mirambeaux sought a continuance to gather support documents. The IJ denied the motion, stating “he’s been detained for several months now. . . The Court does not see good cause why those documents have not been obtained.” The IJ concluded that Mirambeaux’s aggravated felony conviction left him statutorily ineligible for asylum, for withholding of removal, and under CAT, noting that Mirambeaux could not specify who harmed his friends or why, nor was he able to establish that the government would not be able to protect him. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit dismissed a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Mirambeaux failed to state a colorable constitutional claim or question of law within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C)-(D). View "Mirambeaux v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that Petitioner's claims were unavailing.After Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief. The BIA affirmed and, pursuant to the IJ's order, granted Petitioner voluntary departure. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish that he was eligible for asylum; (2) the resolution of Petitioner's asylum claim also disposed of his withholding of removal claim; and (3) Petitioner's claim related to the denial of his request for CAT protection was waived. View "Zhakira v. Barr" on Justia Law

Hernandez-Morales, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. illegally in 1995. He shares custody of his daughters, who are U.S. citizens. During the week, the daughters live with their father in a well-regarded school district. He has a successful career as a chef, working at the same restaurant for 15 years. Hernandez-Morales was convicted of simple assault on his wife and of driving under the influence. Hernandez-Morales unsuccessfully sought cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C.1229b; the IJ found his removal would not cause his daughters “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” and he would not merit relief because of his criminal convictions. The BIA dismissed the "hardship" appeal and did not reach his criminal record.The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal, reasoning that it lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of relief under section 1229b and whether hardship is “exceptional and extremely unusual” “is a "quintessential discretionary judgment.” While the court retains jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law, Hernandez-Morales did not assert a constitutional claim but only challenged the IJ’s finding that his wife could take over his lease and keep their daughters in their current school and weighing of his moral character. “A party may not dress up a claim with legal clothing to invoke” jurisdiction. View "Hernandez-Morales v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying asylum and related relief to petitioner, holding that substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that, had petitioner reported her abuse, the Guatemalan government could have protected her from her ex-boyfriend. The panel stated that, although the State Department reports make clear that Guatemala still has a long way to go in addressing domestic violence, the country's efforts, coupled with the pleas of petitioner's acquaintances, suggest that she could have obtained help.The panel also held that petitioner waived any argument as to her claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) by failing to specifically and distinctly discuss the matter in her opening brief. In any event, such an argument would have failed because she has not shown a likelihood of torture by or with the acquiescence of public officials. View "Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr" on Justia Law