Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision holding 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 (Child), holding that the Kentucky General Assembly has not specifically directed Kentucky's courts to make SIJ findings.Child was detained by United States immigration authorities in Arizona and temporarily placed with a cousin pending immigration proceedings. An adult resident of Newport, Kentucky filed a dependency petition in the Campbell County Family Court regarding Child. The court concluded that it was without the jurisdictional authority to undertake SIJ findings because such findings were not relevant to the core dependency, neglect, and abuse matters before the court. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kentucky courts are not required to make additional findings related to SIJ classification unless the court first determines that the evidence to be gathered from such a hearing is relevant to the child's best interests. View "Commonwealth, Cabinet for Health & Family Services v. N.B.D." on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by an alien who is illegally unlawfully in the United States. The court held that the "in the United States" element of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A) requires only that a noncitizen be physically present within the United States. The court rejected defendant's argument that a defendant must have "entered" the country as a matter of immigration law.The court also held that, in light of defendant's immigration status at the time of the conduct underlying his arrest, he was unlawfully present in the United States. The court rejected defendant's argument that he was not present "illegally or unlawfully" because he was effectively paroled into the country when he was released from detention in 2007. View "United States v. Balde" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner's petition for review of the denial of his application for cancellation of removal, holding that Petitioner's arguments failed to make out any colorable legal claim.Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without admission of parole, filed this petition for review the BIA's decision adopting and affirming the IJ's denial of Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner's sole legal claim was that the BIA erred in adopting and affirming the IJ's decision because the IJ relied "almost exclusively on hearsay police reports in determining that Petitioner did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion." The First Circuit dismissed the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a colorable claim under established precedent. View "Perez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed in part and denied in part Petitioner's petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of Petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA's decision must stand.Specifically, the Court held (1) because Petitioner filed an untimely application for asylum, this Court did not have jurisdiction to review Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's ruling on Petitioner's asylum claim; (2) Petitioner waived his challenge to the BIA's ruling affirming the IJ's denial of Petitioner's request for withholding of removal; and (3) Petitioner provided no basis for overturning the BIA's ruling on his CAT claim. View "Rodriguez-Palacios v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removable as an immigrant who at the time of application for admission lacked a valid entry document under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), and that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal.The panel followed its binding precedent in Minto v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1261 (2018), and Eche v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2012), holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision. In Minto, the panel held that although Congress's two-year reprieve protected immigrants like petitioner from removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) on the basis that they had not been admitted or paroled into the United States, it did not exempt them from removal based on other grounds of removability. Therefore, the panel held that reprieve did not offer petitioner protection from the charge that she was an immigrant who at the time of application for admission lacked a valid entry document. The panel also held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petition failed to establish the ten years of continuous presence in the United States required for cancellation of removal. Finally, the panel lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's request to remand. View "Torres v. Barr" on Justia Law

After ICE changed how it calculated overtime pay for certain employees, the union filed a grievance, alleging that ICE changed the policy without first bargaining. The DC Circuit agreed with the Authority's determination that ICE had no duty to bargain with the union before changing its overtime policy because ICE's previous policy was unlawful. In this case, ICE's previous policy of excluding leave time was unlawful under a straightforward reading of the 1997 Guidance and the 2002 amendments to the regulations. View "American Federation of Government Employees National Council v. FLRA" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. In this case, the court granted the government's motion to remand to allow the BIA to consider the issues raised in petitioners' opening brief. The court held that attorneys' fees were unwarranted because the government was the prevailing party on the bulk of petitioner's claims and was substantially justified in denying protection under the Convention Against Torture. View "W. M. V. C. v. Barr" on Justia Law

Toure, a citizen of Mali, entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in January 2007. In June 2009, he married Wolfe, a U.S. citizen. Conditional on his marriage, he was granted permanent resident status. In September 2011, Toure and Wolfe filed a joint I‐751 petition to remove the conditions. After an interview, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny because the marriage seemed to have been motivated by immigration benefits; the two were living apart and could not answer basic questions about each other. USCIS terminated Toure's conditional permanent resident status. In removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(D)(i), Toure conceded removability but said that he and Wolfe were still married and that they intended to proceed with the joint filing. He and Wolfe had actually been separated for several months. The IJ set the merits hearing for more than three years later. In December 2014, Toure and Wolfe divorced. Neither Toure nor his attorney informed the immigration court of this change in status. A month before the long‐scheduled removal hearing, Toure filed a new I‐751 petition, this time requesting a waiver of the joint‐filing requirement. At the hearing, he requested a continuance to allow USCIS time to adjudicate that petition and waiver request. The IJ and BIA rejected his request. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Toure’s hope that USCIS would grant his waiver was speculative at best and he did not diligently pursue his collateral remedy. View "Toure v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Homaidan Al-Turki was a citizen of Saudi Arabia, sentenced by a Colorado state court to a term of eight years to life. He wished to serve the remainder of his time in prison in his home country. A treaty permitted this, but required approval of the State, the federal government, and the foreign nation. Plaintiff alleged he received approval from the proper state official but Defendants (several state and federal officials) then provided false derogatory information to the State that caused it to revoke its approval. He filed suit in the federal district court contending Defendants had violated his right to procedural due process under the federal Constitution by not providing him a hearing to clear his name before revoking the approval. He sought an injunction requiring he be granted a judicial hearing to clear his name and that Defendants not repeat the false allegations against him. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the district court granted the motion. After review, the Tenth Circuit concurred: “The stigma that results from defamation by public officials is alone insufficient to implicate procedural due process; the defamation must also have caused an alteration in the plaintiff’s legal status—that is, there must be ‘stigma plus.’ But Plaintiff has not adequately alleged a plus factor here, because he suffered no change in legal status as a result of Defendants’ alleged stigmatizing comments. Therefore, constitutional due process did not require that he be granted a hearing before the State’s final decision against his transfer to a prison in Saudi Arabia.” View "Al-Turki v. Tomsic" on Justia Law

8 U.S.C. 1503(a)'s reference to "the final administrative denial" means the first final administrative denial. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's challenge to the USCIS's denial of a certificate of citizenship, holding that the claim was time-barred. In this case, the USCIS first denied plaintiff a certificate of citizenship in 2008 and then again in 2016, but plaintiff only challenged the agency's 2016 denial. The court affirmed and held that, while the text was silent regarding duplicative denials, in defining a limitations period, Congress expressed its interest in finality. The court explained that implicitly authorizing a series of duplicative claims would frustrate that interest. View "Gonzalez v. Limon" on Justia Law