Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

To hold categorically that an applicant for relief under the Convention Against Torture must be threatened more than once and that such a person must suffer physical harm before fleeing is an error of law.The Second Circuit granted a petition for review challenging the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The court held that the IJ erred as a matter of law for penalizing petitioner for her prompt flight. Although the IJ credited petitioner's testimony that the threats received by the MS-13 gang were believable and no way remote, it erred by requiring that petitioner and her family wait until they suffered physical harm or until the threats recurred before they fled. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Martinez De Artiga v. Barr" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Fifth Circuit held that petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that his conviction for possession of cocaine under the Texas statute criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the federal generic definition for cocaine. The court also held that petitioner failed to demonstrate error in the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the final order of removal and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition for review of his eligibility for relief and protection. View "Alexis v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that Proclamation 9645, which imposed certain restrictions on the entry of individuals from eight countries, violates their rights under the Establishment Clause, as well as under other clauses of the Constitution, because it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate national security concerns and is motivated solely by anti-Muslim animus.The government filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim based mainly on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018), which reversed a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Proclamation 9645 that had been issued on facts that are essentially the same as those alleged here. The Hawaii Court held that the government had "set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review" and thus plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and held that the district court misunderstood the import of the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii and the legal principles it applied. The court held that Proclamation 9645 restricts the entry of foreign nationals from specified countries, giving reasons for doing so that are related to national security, and it makes no reference to religion. In this case, although the district court agreed that the Mandel standard is controlling, it failed to apply the standard of review properly, moving past the face of the Proclamation to consider in its analysis external statements made by President Trump. The court proceeded beyond consideration of only the facially stated purposes of Proclamation 9645 and determined whether plaintiffs have alleged plausible constitutional claims under the rational basis standard of review. Under the rational basis standard, plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed because the Proclamation was plausibly related to the Government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaints. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

A conviction for being under the influence of a controlled substance, in violation of California Health and Safety Code 11550(a), is divisible with respect to controlled substance such that the modified categorical approach applies to determining whether a conviction under the statute is a controlled-substance offense as defined by federal law.The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for having been convicted of a controlled-substance offense as defined by federal law. The panel explained that, where, as here, the controlled-substance requirement of a state statute is divisible and where, as here, the relevant substance is shown by application of the modified categorical approach to be federally controlled, then there is "a direct link between an alien's crime of conviction and a particular federally controlled drug" such that section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is satisfied. Furthermore, the divisibility of the actus reus element of Section 11550(a) is irrelevant, because under the modified categorical approach a conviction for using or being under the influence of amphetamine relates to a federally controlled substance. View "Tejeda v. Barr" on Justia Law

Garcia illegally entered the U.S. days before his eighteenth birthday and was found to be an “unaccompanied alien child.” Over a year later, Garcia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he had been threatened by gangs in El Salvador. Based on his purported status as an “unaccompanied alien child,” he sought relief from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. An immigration judge (IJ) took jurisdiction over his case and denied his claims for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed but remanded so that the IJ could determine whether to continue removal proceedings while Garcia pursued adjustment of status. The IJ denied the continuance. The Board affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied Garcia’s motion for a stay of removal. Garcia has been removedThe Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting a challenge to the IJ’s jurisdiction. Garcia cited 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(3)(C), which provides that USCIS “shall have initial jurisdiction over any asylum application filed by an unaccompanied alien child.” The provision requires that the alien be an “unaccompanied alien child” when he applies for asylum; it is not enough that the alien was an “unaccompanied alien child” when he first entered the U.S. In considering Garcia’s CAT application, the IJ applied the correct legal standard: that torture includes cases in which public officials show “willful blindness” to private torture. View "Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law

In Penal Code section 1473.7, the Legislature broadened the standards to challenge guilty pleas involving advisements concerning immigration consequences. Defendant appealed an order denying her recent motion to vacate her 1991 conviction for possession for sale of cocaine base following her no contest plea pursuant to Penal Code 1473.7. Defendant claimed that her counsel did not advise her that a mandatory consequence of her plea would make her "permanently ineligible to ever become a legal resident of the United States."The Court of Appeal held that defendant may pursue her current motion to vacate the conviction. The court held that, although defendant had filed an earlier unsuccessful motion to vacate the conviction in 2017, the prior motion did not bar the current motion because it was based on a different ground and on an earlier version of section 1473.7. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions. The court noted that the changes the Legislature made in 2019 were intended to retroactively target convictions based on the type of inadequate immigration advisements that occurred in this case. View "People v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by failing to summarily deny the applications for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus submitted by Petitioners, Carlos Chavez and Luis Lopez, for its consideration in this case.A sheriff entered into an agreement with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1357, that certified deputies to perform specific immigration enforcement functions, including the detention of undocumented aliens. Petitioners, who were being held in pretrial detention pursuant to immigration-related arrest warrants and detainers, filed petitions seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court issued writs of habeas corpus. The court of appeals vacated the trial court orders, concluding that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus for alien petitions not in state custody and held under federal authority. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that state judicial officials acting in counties in which the sheriff has entered into a 287(g) agreement with the federal government do not have the authority to grant applications for the issuance of writs of habeas corpus for and to order the release of individuals held pursuant to immigration-related arrest warrants and detainers. View "Chavez v. McFadden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of a state agency ruling several noncitizen applicants ineligible for all public benefits of the Bridge to Independence program (B2I), holding that the district court did not err in determining that applicants were not eligible for B2I.The applicants in this case were Guatemalan citizens who fled to Nebraska as minors. Each applicant was adjudicated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) and placed in foster care. The applicants, who had already received special immigration juvenile status, applied to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for B2I. DHHS denied the applications because each applicant failed to meet the citizenship and lawful presence requirements. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the applicants were not eligible for B2I because the applicants were not "lawfully present" and the legislature did not "affirmatively provide[]" for unlawful applicants to be eligible under the Young Adult Bridge to Independence Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-4501 to 43-4514. View "E.M. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's order of removal, and denial of petitioner's motion for remand based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to satisfy the procedural requirements set out in Matter of Lozada for her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. In this case, the affidavit does not allege that petitioner conveyed to counsel that his assistance was ineffective, or that petitioner ever attempted to contact counsel for the purpose of telling him so. Therefore, nothing in the affidavit indicates that counsel had any actual notice of allegations that his assistance had been ineffective or any opportunity to respond to those allegations, as required by Lozada. The court also held that petitioner's additional contention that he substantially complied with the notice requirement of Lozada by filing complaints against counsel with the Florida Bar and the Executive Office for Immigration Review cannot be sustained because it would eviscerate the separate nature of the Lozada requirements. Furthermore, petitioner's complaints to disciplinary authorities about counsel cannot support substantial compliance with the notice requirement because the Florida Bar and immigration review procedures of sending notice to the complained-of attorney are not automatically triggered. Finally, the court held that the BIA did not fail to give reasoned consideration to petitioner's evidence. View "Point Du Jour v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding petitioner's removal based on criminal convictions. Petitioner argued that 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3)'s second clause discriminates by gender and legitimacy and thus violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.The panel held that petitioner failed to establish an equal protection violation with respect to section 1432(a)(3), the applicable derivative-citizenship statute. In this case, because petitioner's paternity and maternity were both established when she was a child, she is not similarly situated to persons who derived citizenship under section 1432(a)(3)'s second clause. Therefore, petitioner's constitutional challenge to section 1432(a)(3) failed and she could not be granted derivative citizenship. The panel also held that petitioner's contention under the first clause of section 1432(a)(3) is foreclosed by United States v. Mayea-Pulido, 946 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2020). Because petitioner is not a citizen of the United States, the panel lacked jurisdiction to review her final order of removal. View "Roy v. Barr" on Justia Law