Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals ruling that the family court erred in declining to conduct a special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) hearing at the disposition phase of a dependency, neglect and abuse case regarding an unaccompanied Guatemalan child, holding that Kentucky courts are not required to engage in SIJ status factfinding.The family court determined that it was without the jurisdictional authority to undertake SIJ findings because such findings were not relevant to the core dependency, neglect, and abuse issues before the court. The mother appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by not making the findings required for SIJ status. The court of appeals agreed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the General Assembly has not specifically directed Kentucky's courts to make SIJ findings, and therefore, the family could need not make additional findings relevant to the child's SIJ classification, upon request, in every case; and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the proper place for SIJ status factfinding was in federal immigration court. View "Commonwealth v. N.B.D." on Justia Law

Upon sua sponte rehearing, the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court granted the petition for review and held that petitioner failed to exhaust his challenge to the immigration court’s jurisdiction based on alleged defects in his Notice to Appear. The court also held that the Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C). Therefore, the court concluded that this conviction did not disqualify petitioner from seeking cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores-Abarca v. Barr" on Justia Law

8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national interest waiver. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action challenging the denial of his petition for a national interest waiver related to his application for a work visa.Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) provides that no court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security. The panel held that section 1153(b)(2)(B)(i)'s plain language specifies that the authority to grant (or to deny) a national interest waiver is in the discretion of the Attorney General. The panel also held that plaintiff's various claims simply repackaged his core grievance regarding the national interest waiver, and his due process claim failed because he received notice by regular mail to the address given. View "Poursina v. USCIS" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, seeking a declaration of citizenship under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a). The court held that the district court did not clearly err in denying jurisdiction over the section 1503(a) claim in light of the deficient record developed by plaintiff and the court's deferential standard of review. The court also held that section 1503(a) was an adequate alternative remedy for plaintiff's injury, and that the district court was therefore correct that it lacked jurisdiction over his claim under the Administrative Procedure Act. View "Flores v. Pompeo" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of Petitioner's application for refugee status, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings of the immigration court.Petitioner, a native of El Salvador, entered the United States unlawfully. Petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he was abused and threatened as a child by family and purported gang members in El Salvador. The IJ denied Petitioner's application for refugee status and ordered his removal to El Salvador. The BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal and affirmed the IJ. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the immigration court's findings. View "Miranda-Bojorquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on his imputed political opinion and whistleblowing activities exposing police corruption.The panel rejected petitioner's broad challenge to Matter of N–M–, arguing that it misconstrues the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Rather, the panel held that the three factor test in N–M– was consistent with the whistleblowing cases in this circuit and the BIA's interpretation was not unreasonable. In this case, the panel held that petitioner's asylum claim failed because the record did not support his claim that police officers persecuted him on account of his imputed political opinion. Although the BIA erroneously applied the "one central reason" nexus standard rather than the "a reason" standard, the panel need not remand because the BIA adopted the IJ's finding of no nexus between the harm and the alleged protected ground and thus neither the result nor the BIA's basic reasoning would change. View "Singh v. Barr" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Fifth Circuit held, in light of Matter of L-E-A-, -- which stands for the proposition that families may qualify as social groups, but the decision must be reached on a case-by-case basis -- that the BIA failed to rely on the factual findings of the IJ, which were likely impacted by the incorrect legal posture through which the IJ viewed the case. Considering the error, and in order that the IJ and the BIA may have the benefit of the increased clarity provided by Matter of L-E-A-, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Pena Oseguera v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's denial of continuance for petitioner to update his fingerprints with DHS. In this case, petitioner did not update his fingerprints because his lawyer advised him, incorrectly, that he was not required to do so.The panel held that petitioner's reliance on his lawyer's advice was reasonable and constituted "good cause" to grant the continuance under 8 C.F.R. 1003.29. The panel held that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to analyze all the factors in Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion by analyzing the unreasonableness of petitioner's conduct in an arbitrary and irrational manner. View "Pleitez-Lopez v. Barr" on Justia Law

8 C.F.R. 1003.14 sets forth a claim processing rule as opposed to a jurisdictional rule. The Eleventh Circuit held that, even assuming petitioner's notice to appear (NTA) was deficient under the regulations, the agency properly exercised jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because section 1003.14 could not have imposed jurisdictional limitations. Therefore, the IJ and BIA properly exercised jurisdiction over petitioner's removal order based on the authority conferred upon them by 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1). Therefore, the court denied the petition for review as to petitioner's Pereira claim.To the extent petitioner argued that he was nonetheless entitled to a remand because his NTA violated the agency's claim-processing rules, the court dismissed this part of his petition for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust the claim before the agency. The court rejected petitioner's due process claim, holding that the agency's decision not to address petitioner's appeal absent DHS briefing did not render his appeal fundamentally unfair.However, the court held that the BIA's determination that any motive to harm petitioner based on his family status was at most incidental was not supported by substantial evidence, because it was abundantly clear that petitioner's family relationship was one central reason, if not the central reason, for the harm he experienced. Therefore, the court granted his petition for review, and remanded his asylum and withholding of removal claims. View "Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings before immigration judges. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of an IJ's decision affirming an asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination in expedited removal proceedings. The panel held that petitioner had a statutory right to counsel; the colloquy at the beginning of the hearing before the IJ was inadequate to waive that right; and no showing of prejudice was required. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings where petitioner will be given the opportunity to proceed with counsel. View "Zuniga v. Barr" on Justia Law