Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that the IJ and BIA applied the correct legal standard in requiring petitioner to show his social group or political opinion was the predominant reason for the persecution. The court held that petitioner's asylum claim failed because the evidence did not compel a finding that petitioner was persecuted on account of his social group or political opinion. Likewise, petitioner's application for withholding of removal also failed. In this case, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that gangs were targeting petitioner for general recruitment purposes and his relationship to his father, a former policeman, was merely "incidental or tangential" to that goal. View "Gomez-Rivera v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that the Chinese police prevented petitioner from practicing his faith and did so through coercive means. In this case, petitioner suffered physical mistreatment that caused him to seek medical attention and the police effectively prevented him from practicing his religion and living a Christian life. Therefore, petitioner suffered ongoing harm which, under circuit precedent, compelled a finding of past persecution. The panel remanded for the BIA to apply the rebuttable presumption that petitioner will experience further persecution if returned to China. However, the panel held that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of torture. View "Zhihui Guo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Ricketts petitioned the Third Circuit to review the BIA's denial of his motions to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that he is actually a U.S. citizen. Finding that there were genuine issues of material fact as to his nationality, the court granted a joint motion and transferred the nationality dispute to the Eastern District of New York, where Ricketts resided at the relevant time (8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(5)(B)). After an evidentiary hearing, that court decided that the evidence overwhelmingly established that Ricketts is a Jamaican national who appropriated the identity of a U.S. citizen. Ricketts sought review by the Second Circuit. The district court transmitted the appeal to the Third Circuit. The government sought transfer the to the Second Circuit, requesting that the Third Circuit retain jurisdiction over Ricketts’s other consolidated petitions for review. The Third Circuit held that an appeal from a nationality determination following a transfer must be taken to the appellate court that typically hears appeals from the district court making the determination rather than to the appellate court that transferred the case to the district court in the first place. The statute indicates that Congress intended that hearings under section 1252(b)(5)(B) be treated as new proceedings separate from the underlying petitions for review. The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a nationality determination made by the Eastern District of New York. View "Ricketts v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner's parents, Sunni Muslims, fled Syria before he was born to escape the al-Assad regime. Petitioner was born in Iraq and lived in Yemen. Petitioner obtained a bachelor’s degree in engineering. In 2011, Petitioner entered Turkey using a Syrian passport, obtained by his father. Petitioner's cousin, Alhaider, a U.S.-born teacher, traveled to Turkey. They became engaged. Petitioner obtained a new passport through his father, who would not divulge how he obtained it. The passport was actually a stolen blank Syrian passport, to which Petitioner’s information was added. Petitioner obtained a fiancé visa, 8 U.S.C. 1184(d), and traveled the U.S. He and Alhaider were married. Petitioner became a conditional permanent resident. DHS learned that Petitioner might have entered the U.S. using a stolen blank passport. Petitioner was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A), An IJ granted Petitioner a waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H), asylum, and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the grant of withholding but concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to asylum or to the waiver. The Sixth Circuit held that the Board unreasonably applied its own binding precedent, which dictates that asylum may not be denied solely due to violations of proper immigration procedures; the danger of persecution should outweigh all but the most egregious countervailing factors. Courts generally lack jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations such as the denial of a waiver but the BIA engaged in de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings, in violation of its regulatory obligation to review those findings only for clear error. View "Hussam F. v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the county court erred when it declined to make special factual findings for Juvenile to apply for special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) on the grounds that it was not a “juvenile court” for purposes of the statute.Juvenile’s grandfather (Grandfather) sought to be appointed as Juvenile’s guardian and requested that the county court make special findings of fact contemplated in section 1101(a)(27)(J) to potentially become eligible for SIJ status. The county court appointed Grandfather as Juvenile’s legal guardian but declined to make the requested special findings of fact that Juvenile could use in his immigration petition based on its conclusion that it did not constitute a “juvenile court” for SIJ findings purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a county court with a jurisdictional basis under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1238(a) and which has made a child custody determination, such as appointing a guardian, has authority to make factual findings consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) and (ii); and (2) the county court erred when it made a custody determination under section 43-1238(a) but then refused to make special findings under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). View "In re Guardianship of Luis J." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the county court erred when it concluded that the appointed guardian (Guardian) of her juvenile nephew (Juvenile) had not satisfied 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) and therefore denied Guardian’s motion to make special factual findings that are necessary to apply for SIJ status under the statute.In denying Guardian’s request to make special findings to be used in immigration proceedings, the county court stated that Juvenile was “not dependent on this court” and that Guardian had not satisfied the dependency or custody component of section 1101(a)(27)(J). During the pendency of this appeal, the Nebraska Legislature amended Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1238(b) to clarify that courts with jurisdiction over initial child custody determinations under section 43-1238(a) also have jurisdiction and authority to make special findings of fact similar to the findings of fact contemplated by section 1101(a)(27)(J). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that because the county court made a custody determination under section 43-1238(a), it erred when it concluded that it had not made a custody determination for purposes of section 1101(a)(27)(J)(i). View "In re Guardianship of Carlos D." on Justia Law

Singh entered the U.S. in 1993. An IJ denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal (alleging religious persecution) and issued an exclusion order. Before the BIA ruled, he married a U.S. citizen. In 2000, Singh obtained permanent residency. Three years later Singh was arrested in Indiana. In 2004 he pleaded guilty to felony corrupt business influence. An IJ found him removable, citing his conviction for an aggravated felony related to racketeering, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and his conviction, within five years of admission, for a crime involving moral turpitude with a possible sentence of one year or longer. Singh was removed and later readmitted on a visitor visa to pursue post-conviction relief. The Indiana court vacated his felony conviction and accepted Singh’s guilty plea to the crime of deception, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment “for a fixed term of not more than one (1) year.” The BIA reopened. The government later alleged that Singh had fraudulently procured readmission and overstayed his visa, withdrawing the previous charge of removability, erroneously conceding that the moral-turpitude provision no longer applied. Months later, the government issued a new charge based on the deception conviction. The BIA affirmed a removal order, reasoning that the misdemeanor qualifies as a crime for which a sentence of “one year or longer” may be imposed. Meanwhile, Singh returned to state court, which vacated the deception conviction in exchange for a guilty plea to a different misdemeanor.The Seventh Circuit upheld the BIA's refusal to reopen. To warrant reopening, Singh had to show a substantive or procedural defect in the underlying criminal proceedings; his vacatur was based on a plea agreement. The court rejected alternative arguments that deception does not carry a possible sentence of “one year or longer” and that the government’s concession was binding. View "Singh v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted Frimmel's petition for review of the ALJ's final decision and order declining to suppress employment records ICE obtained through an investigation of Frimmel's compliance with employment verification requirements. ICE had initiated an investigation of Frimmel after the Maricopa Sheriff's Office (MCSO) conducted illegal raids of two restaurants and the home of Bret Frimmel, owner of Frimmel.The panel held that MCSO committed knowing or reckless material omissions and distortions in search warrant affidavits that resulted in a search violating the Fourth Amendment, and the violation was egregious because a reasonable officer should have known the conduct was unconstitutional. The panel also held that ICE's investigation was not attenuated from MCSO's illegal raid and ICE's evidence was the fruit of MCSO's illegal raid. Finally, the panel held that MCSO's conduct easily met the flagrancy standards and it had immigration enforcement in its "zone of primary interest." Therefore, the exclusionary rule would serve to deter MCSO from Fourth Amendment violations by the probability that illegally obtained evidence would not be useful to ICE, even in a civil proceeding. The panel reversed the ALJ's ruling that denied suppression of ICE's evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule, remanding for further proceedings. View "Frimmel Management, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for adjustment of status under the Violence Against Women Act. The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's finding that petitioner, a Canadian citizen, knew she was ineligible to vote in the 2004 election and did so anyway. Furthermore, petitioner failed to show clearly and beyond doubt that she was entitled to an entrapment-by-estoppel defense. View "Chernosky v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioners' motions to suppress evidence relating to their immigration status obtained by law enforcement agents during a nighttime search of their residence. The court held that petitioners made a sufficient showing of an egregious constitutional violation to warrant an evidentiary hearing and those facts could support a basis for excluding the evidence. In this case, petitioners presented substantial evidence that the search was improperly based on race; petitioners have raised fair questions as to whether a warrant existed and, if so, whether the search exceeded its scope; and petitioners presented sufficient evidence that, if credited, would show the agents engaged in severe conduct. View "Zuniga-Perez v. Sessions" on Justia Law