Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Tima, a citizen of Cameroon, entered the U.S. in 1989 on a nonimmigrant student visa. To stay past his student-eligibility period, he entered into a sham marriage. Tima pleaded guilty to a felony charge of making false statements, admitting to the sham. The government did not promptly issue a notice to appear. In 1997, Tima married a now-naturalized citizen. They have three children, all U.S. citizens. The government issued Tima a notice to appear in 2003. An IJ sustained charges of marriage fraud (8 U.S.C.1227(a)(1)(G)(ii)), termination of conditional-permanent-resident status (1227(a)(1)(D)(i)), and a moral-turpitude conviction (1227(a)(2)(A)(i)) and ruled that the fraud waiver, under which the Attorney General may waive a removal charge that is based on inadmissibility for misrepresenting a material fact to gain admission, could extend to the marriage-fraud charge but not to the other charges. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit denied Tima’s petition for review. If the Attorney General grants a fraud waiver, the Act automatically extends that waiver to other removal provisions based on “grounds of inadmissibility directly resulting from such fraud or misrepresentation” (1227(a)(1)(H)), but a removal charge based on a post-admission crime is not based on a “ground of inadmissibility.” View "Tima v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The panel held that petitioner was not removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), as an alien who made a false claim of citizenship to obtain private employment, because there was no basis in the record to conclude that he represented himself as a citizen on a Form I–9. In this case, there was nothing in the record showing that petitioner ever filled out a Form I-9 and thus nothing in the record to show that he made a false representation of citizenship. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Diaz-Jimenez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Where a state statute contains two layers of disjunctive lists, the analysis outlined in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), for applying the categorical approach, applies to both layers of the statute and must be performed twice. A methamphetamine conviction under California Health & Safety Code 11378 or 11379(a) does not qualify as a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner removable for a controlled substance offense. The panel held that the California definition of methamphetamine was broader than the federal definition. The panel also held that the methamphetamine element applicable to a conviction under sections 11378 or 11379(a) was not divisible, because the different varieties of methamphetamine covered by California law were alternative means of committing a single crime rather than alternative elements of separate crimes. Therefore, the panel did not apply the modified categorical approach. View "Atenia Lorenzo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner sought relief after he and his family were the victims of threats, home invasions, beatings, and killings at the hands of Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional guerillas.The panel held that petitioner was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal. In this case, the record compelled a finding of past persecution, and substantial evidence did not support the agency's determination that the government successfully rebutted the presumption of future persecution. The panel applied the pre-REAL ID Act standards and held that the harm petitioner suffered had a nexus to a protected ground because the guerillas were motivated by his family's government and military service. The panel also held that the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying petitioner's application for CAT relief. The panel remanded for reconsideration of the CAT claim. View "Quiroz Parada v. Sessions" on Justia Law

DHS detained Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, in 2014, after she illegally entered the U.S. Ramirez stated she feared a neighbor would kill her if she returned to Guatemala because he frequently asked her to have sex, and she refused; she reported this neighbor to the police after he attempted to rape another woman, but the police did not arrest him. Ramirez said this neighbor sent men to confront her at knifepoint, demanding money and threatening to kill her. Ramirez submitted her asylum application (completed with the help of an attorney) and represented herself pro se. The IJ denied the application, stating Ramirez feared a “personal and a potential criminal act,” not “persecution” or “torture” necessary for securing asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture relief. The written decision concluded that Ramirez failed to demonstrate either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The decision repeatedly, erroneously, referred to Mexico and its caption charged Ramirez under the wrong statutory section. The BIA found “harmless error.” Ramirez argued the IJ’s hearing conduct violated procedural due process, failing to provide individualized consideration. The Eighth Circuit denied relief. The IJ gave Ramirez declined repeated opportunities to expound on her claim; on appeal, Ramirez failed to explain the evidence she might have offered had the IJ asked further questions. The BIA's order disavowed any errors and exercised the requisite independent judgment supported by substantial evidence. View "Ramirez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Alvarenga-Flores, apprehended crossing the U.S. border, gave a “credible fear” interview while he was detained, stating that he was afraid to return to El Salvador, where he is a citizen, because after witnessing a friend's murder, he received threats from the gang members responsible. Alvarenga applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied all of relief based on an adverse credibility finding; he also found that Alvarenga’s asylum application was time-barred. The IJ cited inconsistencies in Alvarenga’s testimony about his escapes from gang members who attacked him in a taxi and from gang members who approached him on a bus. Alvarenga had submitted affidavits from his parents; both were written in English, although neither parent speaks English. Alvarenga’s parents lacked firsthand knowledge of the events and “restate[d] things that they can only have heard from [Alvarenga].” The IJ further noted that Alvarenga’s parents could have testified telephonically but did not. The BIA found the discrepancies sufficient to sustain an adverse credibility finding, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(C). The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the immigration judge and the Board, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion. View "Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions" on Justia Law

California's receipt of stolen property offense is a categorical match for the generic federal crime of receipt of stolen property. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for attempting to reenter the United States after being deported, holding that defendant's prior California conviction for receipt of stolen property was a felony theft offense that was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The panel also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and rejected defendant's remaining claims. View "United States v. Flores" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s application seeking asylum relief, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT) and ordering her removed, holding that there was no merit to Petitioner’s arguments before this Court.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that she did not suffer past persecution on account of being a member of a protected class, she did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, and she was not entitled to protection under the CAT. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA’s decision was well supported, and review of the record did not compel a different outcome. View "Aguilar-de Guillen v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel held that petitioner's convictions for indecent exposure under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(1) and under Wash. Rev. Code 9A.88.010(2)(b) are not categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, both statutes were indivisible and thus the modified categorical approach was inapplicable. In the absence of a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. The panel remanded for the BIA to consider anew petitioner's request for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. View "Barrera-Lima v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal. Under the plain text of the stop-time rule, the panel held that petitioner was not rendered inadmissible by his possession of cocaine because, as a lawful permanent resident, he was not subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. Therefore, petitioner was eligible to apply for cancellation of removal. The panel acknowledged that its conclusion parted ways with the Fifth Circuit in Calix v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 1000 (5th Cir. 2015). The panel remanded for the BIA to consider petitioner's application of cancellation of removal on the merits. View "Vu Minh Nguyen v. Sessions" on Justia Law