Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Approximately 25 years after his guilty plea to resisting a police officer with violence, an IJ found petitioner removable and ruled he was no longer eligible for cancellation of removal on account of the stop-time rule.The Eleventh Circuit held that it was error to retroactively apply the stop-time rule to petitioner's pre-Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) conviction. The court found no clear congressional statement that the stop-time rule should be applied retroactively to pre-IIRIRA plea agreements like petitioner's and held that in the circumstances presented here—specifically, where petitioner's pre-IIRIRA plea agreement did not render him immediately deportable—applying the stop-time rule to his 1995 conviction would have an impermissibly retroactive effect. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rendon v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Marquez and her 12-year-old daughter, Diana applied for admission into the U.S. at the California border. Marquez sought asylum and withholding of removal based on her belief that she could not live as an openly gay woman in Mexico without being persecuted. Marquez claims she received threats (via texts, social media, and letters) of physical harm to herself and her children. She reported the threats to the police, who did not help her. The threats stopped within four months. Marquez testified that she is concerned that her sexual orientation would limit her opportunities to work in Mexico and that other children might bully Diana for having a gay mother. Diana had attempted suicide because her peers at school had bullied her for reasons unrelated to her mother’s sexual orientation. Marquez fears that further bullying could trigger Diana again to try to take her own life.The IJ denied the applications. She found Marquez credible and characterized her experiences in Mexico as “unsettling,” but not sufficiently imminent or severe to establish persecution. The IJ found that the threats stemmed not from her status as a gay person but from a personal dispute with an ex‐girlfriend; Marquez had not shown a well‐founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed, noting reports of “positive developments" concerning the rights of LGBT persons in Mexico.” The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence. View "Escobedo-Marquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding that petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that neither of petitioner's convictions for leaving an accident in violation of Va. Code Ann. 46.2–894 and for use of false identification in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2–186.3(B1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The court explained that petitioner's failure-to-stop conviction lacked the required culpable mental state and there is no morally reprehensible conduct. Regardless of the required culpable mental state, the court was not convinced that the offense of false identification has the required moral reprehensible conduct to qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order of removal and remanded with instructions that the government be directed to return petitioner to the United States. View "Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the district court's grant of summary judgment entering declaratory relief for plaintiffs and permanently enjoining the DOJ on a nationwide basis from imposing certain conditions for providing funding for state and local criminal justice programs through Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. Plaintiffs, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, which have enacted laws that limit their employees' authority to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, filed suit to prevent DOJ from denying funding of Byrne grants for failure to comply with new Access, Notice, and Certification Conditions.Consistent with its discussion in City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2019), the panel affirmed the injunction barring DOJ from using the Access and Notice Conditions as Byrne funding requirements for any California state entity or political subdivision. In City of Los Angeles, the panel held that DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the Access and Notice Conditions on Byrne funds in reviewing a preliminary injunction obtained by the City of Los Angeles. The panel also upheld the injunction barring DOJ from denying or withholding Byrne funds on account of the Certification Condition based on plaintiffs' alleged non-compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. With regard to the geographical reach of the relief granted by the district court, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction that extended nationwide. View "City and County of San Francisco v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of a BIA decision dismissing petitioner's appeal of an IJ's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of her motion to suppress evidence. The court held that the agency erred by requiring that petitioner rely on her documentary evidence alone and make a prima facie showing of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation before it would conduct a suppression hearing. The court also held that, because sworn statements and the police incident report that petitioner submitted "could support" suppression under the Cotzojay standard, she was entitled to a hearing. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Millan-Hernandez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion to remand and dismissing his appeal of the denial of his asylum and statutory withholding claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court held that the BIA failed to adequately explain its conclusion that petitioner's proposed social group of former gang members in Guatemala was not particular. Furthermore, the BIA failed to adequately explain its reasons for denying petitioner's motion to remand based on evidence of new country conditions.The court also held that under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D), changed circumstances presenting an exception to the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application need not arise prior to the filing of the application. In this case, the BIA erred when it refused to consider petitioner's alleged changed circumstances on the ground that the change occurred while his application was pending. Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for reconsideration. View "Ordonez Azmen v. Barr" on Justia Law

Kilic, a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was a lawful permanent U.S. resident. A Michigan court sentenced Kilic to five to 20 years of imprisonment for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, making her deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), (U), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the UJ’s denial of relief.The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. Kilic was not entitled to a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) (section 212(h)) or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. To benefit from a section 212(h) waiver, a deportable alien must first “assimilate[] to the position of an applicant for admission”—either by voluntarily leaving the country and then seeking readmission or applying for adjustment of status. Kilic did neither. The court rejected an argument that the conditions for 212(h) relief violate equal protection by irrationally favoring aliens who have left the country over those who apply for the waiver while in the U.S. Under the Convention Against Torture, an alien may not be removed to a country where she would probably be tortured, 8 C.F.R. 208.16(c), 208.17(a). The immigration judge found that Kilic failed to show that she was likely to be tortured in Bosnia. View "Kilic v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's December 2015 order of removal, holding that the BIA did not err in relying on binding precedent to conclude that petitioner was removable on the ground that he was convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. The panel discussed that, if it were writing on a clean slate, what categorical analysis it would use. However, because the panel was not writing on a clean slate, the panel held, according to binding precedent, that petty theft under section 484(a) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude.The panel also denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal. Finally, the panel held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for protection under the Convention Against Torture. View "Silva v. Barr" on Justia Law

Canal A Media and Erick Archila appealed the district court's dismissal of their amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, challenging the USCIS's decision to deny Canal A Media's petition for a work visa for Mr. Archila.The Eleventh Circuit reversed and held that the denial of Canal A Media's visa petition was final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because Canal A Media has gone as far as it can in obtaining administrative adjudication of the I-129 petition and neither plaintiff can displace that decision through Mr. Archila's removal proceedings. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to satisfy the APA finality requirement.The court also held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9) and (g) do not bar plaintiffs' challenge to the visa petition denial. Section 1252(b)(9), commonly known as the "zipper clause," does not apply in this case where plaintiffs have not brought any challenge to Mr. Archila's removal proceedings. Section 1252(g) also does not apply because the I-129 petition is not a decision to commence proceedings, much less to adjudicate a case or execute a removal order. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Canal A Media Holding LLC v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that petitioner's prior misdemeanor conviction under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A), for willful discharge of "any firearm" in a public place without resulting bodily injury, qualifies as a federal "firearm offense" for purposes of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C). The court held that the plain language of the Virginia statute, as supported by later acts of Virginia's legislature and by decisions of its appellate courts, prohibits conduct involving the use of a "any firearm," including antique firearms. Therefore, petitioner was not required to identify a prosecution under the Virginia statute involving an antique firearm to defend against removal. Accordingly, the conduct punishable under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A) is broader than the conduct encompassed by the federal definition of a "firearm offense." View "Gordon v. Barr" on Justia Law