Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Gnatyuk entered the U.S. on a visitor’s visa in 2003. His wife, Melnik, arrived a year later but was apprehended on entry because she presented a fraudulent passport. She requested asylum and passed a credible fear interview. The government later denied her application and placed her in removal proceedings. Gnatyuk sought asylum in 2010, but the government also denied this application, placed him in removal proceedings, and consolidated the cases. Before coming to the U.S., the two operated a clothing business in Ukraine. Melnik testified that, during that period, “racketeers” victimized them through extortion, beat Gnatyuk several times, and once set his car on fire. Local police did nothing. They closed their business and lived separately to ensure Melnik’s safety and the safety of her daughter, who still lives in Ukraine. Gnatyuk’s brother‐in‐law was a recent victim of extortion and beating; Melnik described her hometown as “destroyed.” Melnik owes money for the false Ukrainian passport and testified that her family had faced “constant threats” after her departure. The two had built a business in the U.S., comprising 15 trucks and drivers. The Seventh Circuit denied relief after the BIA affirmed an order of removal. The couple did not demonstrate membership in a cognizable social group nor did they establish a nexus between small‐business‐group membership and their targeting by the criminal group. View "Melnik v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and order of removal. The court held that petitioner's prior violations of two municipal ordinances were misdemeanors that disqualified him from TPS status under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A). The court also held that petitioner suffered no due process prejudice. View "Rubio v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Omissions need not go to the heart of a claim to be considered in adverse credibility determinations, but they must still be weighed in light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole. The Second Circuit granted petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum and related relief based on adverse credibility grounds. In this case, petitioners testified during removal proceedings regarding the medical attention they received for injuries they sustained from police beatings, but omitted that information from their initial applications and supporting documents. The court held that, in light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the record as a whole, the IJ and BIA erred in substantially relying on certain omissions in the record in each case. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Gao v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision granting postconviction relief to Defendant on his claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel from an immigration attorney when he tried to get a driver’s license, holding that no right to counsel had attached when Defendant went to the driver’s license station.Defendant’s visit to the driver’s license station triggered a criminal investigation and ultimately a conviction for a previously committed fraudulent practice. The district court set aside Defendant’s guilty plea and sentence, holding that Defendant’s counsel, who was representing Defendant in a pending federal immigration case, breached his essential duty to provide necessary advice to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that neither the right to counsel under Iowa Const. art. I, 10, nor the United States Constitution Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached at the time Defendant’s attorney advised Defendant regarding getting a driver’s license, as this was before any investigation or criminal proceedings had begun. View "Hernandez-Ruiz v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the Board's determination that he was subject to removal as an alien who has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), and that he was ineligible for a waiver of removal under former INA 212(c). The Fourth Circuit held that petitioner's 1995 conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell constitutes a conviction of both an aggravated felony and a CIMT. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to review petitioner's challenges to the BIA's decision, except to the extent they raised constitutional or legal issues. The court also held that petitioner was ineligible for relief under former INA 212(c) because his convictions in 2000 for felony larceny and felony breaking and entering constitute convictions of CIMTs that were not waivable under section 212(c), which was repealed in 1996. Furthermore, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(a) because such relief was not available to any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Accordingly, the court dismissed petition number 17-1833, and dismissed in part and denied in part petition number 16-2434. View "Guevara-Solorzano v. Sessions" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred in concluding that Petitioner had not suffered past persecution nor had a well-founded fear of future persecution if he returned to Ecuador on account of his indigenous Quiche ethnicity.The First Circuit vacated the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying Petitioner’s asylum application. The Court held (1) Petitioner’s case should be analyzed in light of the fact that he was a minor during the time he suffered abuse, harm, and mistreatment in Ecuador; (2) the IJ and BIA erred as a matter of law in failing to apply the child-specific standard for asylum claims; and (3) the case must be remanded for a finding of whether what Petitioner suffered in Ecuador, viewed from a child’s perspective, amounted to severe mistreatment and, if so, whether the the abuse amounted to government inaction, a requisite for a finding of past persecution. View "Santos-Guaman v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for unlawful procurement of naturalization because he concealed from immigration authorities his past as a guard at a Serbian prison camp. The court held that the district court did not err when it prevented defendant from presenting hearsay statements of foreign witnesses who were unavailable to testify at trial; defendant failed to demonstrate that his constitutional right to present a complete defense was violated under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973); assuming arguendo that the Geneva Convention could be judicially noticed, the district court did not err in determining that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the possibility of confusing the issues and potentially misleading the jury; and the district court did not violate defendant's rights under Chambers when it declined to take judicial notice. View "United States v. Mitrovic" on Justia Law

Ramos-Braga's São Paulo neighborhood was controlled by a gang (PCC), which tried to recruit him and attacked him many times. Police did not help but beat him when he made reports. After a beating hospitalized him for two weeks, Ramos-Braga stopped attending college and spent months moving around. When he returned home, a PCC member shot him. Months later, Ramos-Braga was admitted to the U.S. on a student visa. He married a U.S. citizen, but Ramos-Braga estimated that his wife physically abused him over 100 times. Seven years after he arrived, Ramos-Braga was charged as removable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). He sought special-rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and the Conviction Against Torture. Meanwhile, Ramos-Braga and his wife got into a fight. He was convicted of battery and, after asking his wife not to testify, witness intimidation. DHS added a charge under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for having been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. The BIA affirmed a removal order. During his appeal, his attorney ended the representation. Ramos-Braga continued pro se. After his petition was denied, Ramos-Braga, still pro se, moved the BIA to reopen proceedings. The motion was denied as untimely, but Ramos-Braga maintains he never received notice of this decision. Ramos-Braga filed a second pro se motion to reopen, which was denied as untimely and successive. The BIA rejected arguments that equitable tolling for ineffective assistance of counsel and changed conditions in the country of removal excused his noncompliance. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that neither exception applied. View "Ramos-Braga v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Appellant’s conviction for marriage fraud in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), which prohibits knowingly entering into a marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence presented in this case amply supported the district court’s conclusion that Defendant duped his wife into marrying him in order to avoid deportation; and (2) the trier of fact could reasonably have concluded that Defendant harbored no intent to establish a life with his wife and instead married her solely to avoid deportation. View "United States v. Akanni" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner's conviction for criminal sexual conduct in the third degree in violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.344, subdiv.1(b) was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court explained that a person who has been convicted under the statute has necessarily committed sexual abuse of a minor under the Act and was both removable and ineligible for asylum. View "Garcia-Urbano v. Sessions" on Justia Law