Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Anyone who under the relevant statutes is considered a minor child of a legal permanent resident (LPR) on the date of the parent's naturalization (and who is the beneficiary of a valid petition for an immigrant visa based on that status) can obtain a visa as the minor child of a citizen following his parent's naturalization. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision rejecting petitioner's application for adjustment of status. The panel held that petitioner, a child of an LPR who was deemed by statute to be a minor child until the very day his father naturalized, still qualified as a minor on that day. The panel remanded to the BIA to find that petitioner had an immediately available visa as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen and to conduct further proceedings regarding the other requirements for adjustment of status. View "Rodriguez Tovar v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioners' claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that it had jurisdiction to review petitioners' administrative closure claim, because the Avetisyan factors, rooted in the regulatory grant of authority to IJs and the BIA, provided a sufficiently meaningful standard against which to review IJ and BIA decisions regarding administrative closure. The panel noted that, although remand would usually be appropriate where the IJ and BIA did not conduct an independent review of a request for administrative closure, petitioners here have not argued or shown how they were eligible for administrative closure under the Avetisyan factors. Furthermore, petitioners had no pending petitions or other requests for immigration relief that might make remand necessary. Finally, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ and BIA's decision denying CAT relief. View "Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in holding that petitioner did not meet the nexus requirement where at least one central reason for petitioner's persecution was membership in his family, a protected social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and remanded for further proceedings. The court separately remanded for consideration of the asylum claim in light of its recent decision in Zambrano v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 84 (4th Cir. 2017), which affected petitioner's argument that a statutory "changed circumstances" exception allows consideration of his untimely application. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review. View "Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions" on Justia Law

This appeal addressed whether immigration detainees housed in a private contract detention facility in Aurora, Colorado could bring claims as a class under: (1) 18 U.S.C. 1589, a provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the “TVPA”) that prohibits forced labor; and (2) Colorado unjust enrichment law. The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) owned and operated the Aurora Facility under government contract. While there, Appellees rendered mandatory and voluntary services to GEO: cleaning their housing units’ common areas and performed various jobs through a voluntary work program, which paid them $1 a day. The district court certified two separate classes: (1) all detainees housed at the Aurora Facility in the past ten years (the “TVPA class”); and (2) all detainees who participated in the Aurora Facility’s voluntary work program in the past three years (the “unjust enrichment class”). On interlocutory appeal, GEO argues that the district court abused its discretion in certifying each class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It primarily contended Appellees’ TVPA and Colorado unjust enrichment claims both required predominantly individualized determinations, making class treatment inappropriate. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed class certification. View "Menocal v. The GEO Group" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal and in affirming the IJ's decision finding that she received proper notice of her removal hearing and failed to show a change in country conditions. View "Garcia Nunez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Bernard, a Jamaican citizen, says he realized as a preteen that he was bisexual, but hid it out of fear. He claimed that his family and other Jamaicans persecuted members of the LGBT community. Bernard arrived in the U.S. in 1998, then 19 years old, on a visitor’s visa. He married an American citizen; they divorced. Bernard then had a long relationship with another woman, but also dated men. Between 2002 and 2013 Bernard was convicted of multiple crimes including weapons and drug offenses, and, in 2011 domestic battery, for stabbing his girlfriend’s sister. He never served time in custody. In 2016 removal proceedings, Bernard sought withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A), and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, stating that, if removed, he feared persecution or torture based on his bisexuality and membership in the Jamaica Labour Party. The IJ denied relief, finding that Bernard was not credible enough to sustain his burden on his testimony alone and that the underlying facts of his domestic-battery offense were “particularly serious.” The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the portion of Bernard’s petition seeking review of the “particularly serious crime” designation, and denied the remainder of the petition, stating that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s reasoning. View "Bernard v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT). In her applications, Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, claimed that she was persecuted, and faced future persecution, at the hands of Salvadorian gang members on account of her family membership. An immigration judge (IJ) credited Petitioner’s testimony as true but nonetheless denied relief. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner could not satisfy her claim for asylum, and therefore, she also could not satisfy her claim for withholding of removal; and (2) Petitioner provided no basis by which the court should reverse the BIA’s decision denying her protection under the CAT. View "Villalta-Martinez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The limitation imposed by 8 U.S.C. 1429 applies only to the executive branch's adjudication of naturalization applications, and only when removal proceedings are pending pursuant to an arrest warrant. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of plaintiffs' complaint requesting adjudication of their naturalization applications under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). In this case, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint where it was not the executive branch and there was no pending removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest. Therefore, section 1429 was not applicable. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Yith v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

The limitation imposed by 8 U.S.C. 1429 applies only to the executive branch's adjudication of naturalization applications, and only when removal proceedings are pending pursuant to an arrest warrant. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of plaintiffs' complaint requesting adjudication of their naturalization applications under 8 U.S.C. 1447(b). In this case, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint where it was not the executive branch and there was no pending removal proceeding pursuant to a warrant of arrest. Therefore, section 1429 was not applicable. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Yith v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action seeking derivative U.S. citizenship. The court held that plaintiff could not prove his derivative citizenship as a matter of law under the former Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 301(a)(7), 309(a). Plaintiff was born out of wedlock in Mexico and is the son of an U.S. citizen father and Mexican national mother. In this case, plaintiff could not prove as a matter of law that he was legitimated before turning twenty-one years old and thus could not claim derivative citizenship. View "Gonzalez-Segura v. Sessions" on Justia Law