Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Francisco Padilla-Canales, a Spanish-speaking undocumented immigrant, was arrested after breaking into a residence where his estranged wife was staying with another man, Lesman Escobar Andara. Upon discovering them together, Padilla-Canales stabbed Andara, who died at the scene. Padilla-Canales attempted to have his wife report the incident as a suicide and performed CPR until emergency services arrived. He was advised soon after arrest, in Spanish, that a conviction could lead to deportation, and signed documentation acknowledging this warning. More than a year later, he pled guilty to mitigated deliberate homicide under a nonbinding plea agreement.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court in Gallatin County, Montana, accepted Padilla-Canales’s guilty plea after confirming he understood the charges and potential penalties, and that there were no communication barriers due to language. However, at the change-of-plea hearing, the court did not specifically advise Padilla-Canales of the immigration consequences of his plea or confirm his understanding of those consequences, as required by Montana law. Both the State and defense counsel referenced his immigration status during sentencing, discussing that deportation would likely follow his prison term. The District Court sentenced Padilla-Canales to forty years in prison without parole restrictions.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Montana, Padilla-Canales argued for the first time that his guilty plea was involuntary due to the District Court’s failure to properly advise him about potential deportation. The Supreme Court recognized the advisement failure but concluded that, in this case, Padilla-Canales was aware of the immigration consequences through discussions in open court and with counsel. The Court declined to exercise plain error review, holding that the record did not reveal a manifest miscarriage of justice or compromise the fairness of the proceedings, and affirmed the District Court’s sentencing order. View "State v. Padilla-Canales" on Justia Law

Three Guatemalan citizens—an adult couple and their minor child—entered the United States in September 2021 and were subsequently served with Notices to Appear, charging them with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The adults filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), naming their daughter as a derivative beneficiary, while the daughter filed her own applications for the same relief. Their claims centered on threats and an attack they experienced in Guatemala related to their ownership of a hardware store, as well as concerns about general criminality and safety for their family.After a merits hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found the petitioners credible but concluded that they had not met their burdens for any form of relief. The IJ determined that the evidence showed only isolated incidents rather than a pattern of persecution, and that the threats were linked solely to their business. The IJ held that their proposed particular social groups—“Guatemalan small business owners” and the “Lopez-Ramos-Hernandez nuclear family”—were not cognizable, and that there was no nexus between the harm suffered and a protected ground. The IJ also found that the petitioners had not shown a reasonable fear of future persecution, nor that they could not safely relocate within Guatemala. Consequently, the IJ denied their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.The petitioners appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, making the IJ’s decision the final agency determination. Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s factual findings and that no error of law occurred. The court denied the petition for review, upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Ramos-Hernandez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Antonio Campuzano, a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted in Texas for “Indecency with a Child Sexual Contact” pursuant to Texas Penal Code § 21.11. After his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his offense was a “crime of child abuse” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). During removal proceedings, the government submitted various documents, including a police report and an order of deferred adjudication, to prove Campuzano’s conviction. Campuzano admitted to his citizenship status but contested the admissibility and authentication of the conviction records and denied that his conviction constituted a crime of child abuse under the INA.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Campuzano’s motions to terminate proceedings and overruled his evidentiary objections, finding him removable and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The IJ ordered him removed to Mexico. Campuzano appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), challenging the admission of conviction records, the categorical classification of his offense as a crime of child abuse, and the denial of cancellation. The BIA dismissed his appeal, holding that the methods of authenticating conviction records in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(C) are not mandatory or exclusive, and that his Texas conviction is categorically a crime of child abuse under federal law.Campuzano then petitioned for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that the authentication methods set forth in § 1229a(c)(3)(C) are not mandatory or exclusive, and that Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) is categorically a crime of child abuse for immigration purposes. The court denied Campuzano’s petition for review, affirming his removability. View "Campuzano v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Christian Ruiz, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, experienced significant trauma during his childhood due to persecution by the Sandinista government, including the murder of his father, threats to his family, and repeated harassment. After living in Nicaragua and Guatemala for several years, Ruiz moved to the United States in 2006. He applied for asylum more than a year after his arrival, citing the lasting effects of his childhood trauma, and also sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Ruiz later married a U.S. citizen and requested administrative closure of his removal proceedings to pursue adjustment of status, but his immigration history included multiple DUI convictions.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all forms of relief, finding Ruiz’s trauma did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” excusing the untimeliness of his asylum application, and concluded that neither his past experiences nor current conditions in Nicaragua supported claims for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ also denied administrative closure, citing Ruiz’s criminal and immigration history. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed these decisions, agreeing that Ruiz had not shown how his trauma prevented timely asylum filing, that country conditions in Nicaragua had changed, and that administrative closure was unwarranted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case, addressing its jurisdiction under recent Supreme Court precedent. The court held it had jurisdiction to review the “extraordinary circumstances” determination as a mixed question of law and fact, subject to deference. On the merits, the Ninth Circuit found no error in the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding, CAT relief, or administrative closure, and denied Ruiz’s petition for review. View "RUIZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

Kun Liao, a native and citizen of China, sought relief from removal by applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge denied these applications. Liao appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal on April 10, 2025. He then filed motions to reconsider and to reopen the case; however, the motion to reconsider was deemed untimely, and the motion to reopen was denied for lack of new evidence. Liao also moved to stay removal, which the BIA denied as moot.Following the BIA’s final order denying his motions on July 2, 2025, Liao filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His petition was received by the clerk on August 11, forty days after the BIA’s order, exceeding the statutory thirty-day deadline set by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). The government promptly moved to deny Liao’s petition for untimeliness. The Fifth Circuit noted that Liao’s previous petition had been dismissed for failure to file his brief timely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the thirty-day filing deadline for petitions for review is a mandatory claim-processing rule, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Riley v. Bondi. Because the government did not waive its objection to Liao’s untimely filing and Liao failed to satisfy the requirements of the prison mailbox rule, the Fifth Circuit enforced the deadline and denied the petition for review. All other motions pending with the case were dismissed as moot. View "Liao v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident was convicted in 1999 of second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance under New York law. In 2000, an Immigration Judge determined this conviction made him removable as both an aggravated felony and controlled substance offense and ordered his deportation. He was deported to the Dominican Republic. Over the following years, he reentered the United States twice without authorization, was convicted each time for illegal reentry, and the original 2000 removal order was reinstated for both removals. Following a third unauthorized reentry, he was again charged with illegal reentry. He then moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his original removal order was fundamentally unfair because his underlying conviction was not actually a removable offense, as clarified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Minter.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied his motion to dismiss. The district court concluded that, although there had been a procedural error in the original removal order, the defendant could not show prejudice because his subsequent illegal reentry convictions would themselves have rendered him removable. The district court thus found that the defendant had failed to meet the prejudice requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the district court erred by relying on the later reinstatements of the invalid 2000 removal order. The Circuit explained that those reinstatements were not new removal orders and could not serve as independent predicates for the illegal reentry charge. The proper inquiry is whether the original removal order was fundamentally unfair and prejudicial, which it was. The court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The related appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "United States v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

James Devins, a pro se plaintiff, sought to sponsor a Nepali citizen, Rita Raut, for a U.S. student visa as part of his religious practice, which he described as involving “parental and patriotic guidance” and “spiritual and intellectual mentorship.” Raut’s visa applications were denied three times between 2021 and 2023. After the last denial, Devins filed three separate lawsuits relating to the visa refusal, each time alleging a violation of his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Devins’s first suit against the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for lack of standing, without prejudice. In his second suit against the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, the district court also dismissed the case without prejudice, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on standing and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. In his third and current action, Devins again sued the Assistant Secretary, raising substantially the same claim based on the same events and added no new factual allegations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision to dismiss the third action with prejudice based on the doctrine of res judicata. The Fifth Circuit held that all requirements for res judicata were met: the parties were identical or in privity, the prior judgments were final and on the merits as to jurisdiction, and the same claim was involved in all actions. The court concluded that further litigation was precluded, as Devins had not alleged any new injury or change in circumstances that would alter the prior jurisdictional rulings. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. View "Devins v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Milder Escobar-Temal, a Guatemalan national, unlawfully entered the United States in 2012, living and working in Nashville, Tennessee. In October 2022, Nashville police responding to a domestic incident found three firearms at his residence. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits possession of firearms by individuals unlawfully present in the United States. Escobar-Temal had no prior criminal convictions except a dismissed charge for driving without a license.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied Escobar-Temal’s motion to dismiss the indictment, in which he argued that § 922(g)(5)(A) violated the Second Amendment both facially and as applied. The district court reasoned that, while the Second Amendment’s protections may extend to unlawfully present persons, historical tradition supported disarming those who had not sworn allegiance to the state. After denying the motion, Escobar-Temal pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutional issue.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Sixth Circuit held that the Second Amendment does protect individuals unlawfully present in the United States if they have developed sufficient connections to the national community. However, it further held that there is a longstanding historical tradition of disarming groups lacking a formal relationship with the government, such as unlawfully present noncitizens, due to regulatory difficulties rather than inherent dangerousness. Therefore, the court concluded that § 922(g)(5)(A) does not violate the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied to Escobar-Temal, and affirmed his conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Escobar-Temal" on Justia Law

A woman from Guatemala entered the United States without inspection in 1994 and later applied for asylum, using the address of a man she believed to be an immigration attorney. She was served a Notice to Appear at that address for a removal hearing in 1997 but did not attend, resulting in her removal in absentia. Over a decade later, in 2010, she moved to reopen her removal proceedings, arguing she never received notice of the hearing. The immigration judge (IJ) requested more evidence, but she did not respond, and her motion was denied. She did not appeal that denial.In 2020, she filed a second motion to reopen, again claiming lack of notice. The IJ found this motion was barred because only one such motion is permitted and she did not qualify for any exception. She appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), raising arguments about notice and extraordinary circumstances but did not specifically challenge the IJ’s finding that her motion was numerically barred or argue for equitable tolling of the limit. The Board dismissed her appeal, deeming those issues waived, and declined to reopen her case sua sponte, citing her long delay and lack of due diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed her petition. The court held that, because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not contesting the number-bar ruling before the Board, review of that issue was denied. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. Finally, the court rejected her due process claim, finding the Board’s explanation sufficient. Accordingly, the petition was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Herrera v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action against the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, alleging that the agencies were arresting noncitizens without a warrant in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). After years of litigation, the parties entered into a Consent Decree in 2021, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2022. The Decree required the agencies to issue a policy statement, train officers, and document compliance with § 1357(a)(2). It also outlined procedures for enforcement and modification if violations were alleged.Prior to the Decree’s scheduled expiration in May 2025, Plaintiffs moved to enforce its terms and to extend its duration, asserting substantial noncompliance by Defendants. While these motions were pending, a DHS official declared the Decree terminated. On October 7, 2025, the district court found Defendants had violated the Decree, extended its term by 118 days, and ordered compliance-related relief. Later, Plaintiffs sought release or alternative detention for hundreds of individuals allegedly arrested in violation of the Decree. On November 13, 2025, the district court ordered the release of 13 individuals whom both parties agreed were arrested unlawfully, and additionally ordered release or alternatives for approximately 442 “potential class members,” pending determinations of violation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Defendants’ emergency motion to stay the district court’s October 7 and November 13 orders. The Seventh Circuit denied the request to stay the extension of the Consent Decree, holding that Defendants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their argument that the extension violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). However, the court granted the stay as to the November 13 release order for those arrested pursuant to I-200 warrants and for “potential class members” pending individualized determinations under the Decree. The ruling sets forth the standards for stays and clarifies the limitations of § 1252(f)(1) in the context of class-wide injunctive relief and consent decree enforcement. View "Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law