Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review and held that the BIA's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) was reasonable where the agency concluded that petitioner was not entitled to relief under the Special Rule based on his convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. Upon careful review of petitioner's arguments and the BIA's discussion in Matter of Y-N-P-, the court held that section 1182(h) was ambiguous and the BIA rationally and thoughtfully considered the unique legal question before it, reasonably concluding that section 1182(h) was unavailable to applicants under the Special Rule. View "Arevalo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Seventh Circuit held that the Attorney General has authority under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) to waive an alien’s inadmissibility and to halt removal temporarily while the alien requests a U visa. In Sanchez’s case, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that IJs lack authority to grant such requests. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. Delegation from the Attorney General to immigration judges is a matter of regulation; 8 C.F.R. 1003.10(a) states that “[i]mmigration judges shall act as the Attorney General’s delegates in the cases that come before them.” Disagreeing with the Third Circuit and the Attorney General, the Seventh Circuit held that IJs may exercise the Attorney General’s powers over immigration. On remand, the Board may consider whether 6 U.S.C. 271(b) and 557 transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security all of the Attorney General’s discretionary powers under the immigration laws and may also address whether the power to grant a waiver of inadmissibility may be exercised only in favor of an alien who has yet to enter the United States. The Board must address and resolve those essential issues before the court can consider whether the disposition lies within the scope of the agency’s discretion. View "Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order denying a motion to reconsider petitioner's motion to reopen. Applying Chevron deference to the agency's decision, the court held that petitioner failed to brief her ineffective assistance of counsel claims and therefore waived those claims. View "Lowe v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction for a class of non-citizens in removal proceedings who are detained under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a). In this case, the government has already determined that the class members were neither dangerous nor enough of a flight risk to require detention without bond. Nonetheless, the class members remain detained because they are unable to afford bond in the amount set by the immigration officials. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process claim. The panel reasoned that the government's current policies failed to provide adequate procedural protections to ensure that detention of the class members was reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. The panel concluded that due process likely requires immigration officials when considering bond determinations to consider financial circumstances and alternative conditions of release. Furthermore, plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; the balance of the equities favored plaintiffs; and the public interest benefited from the injunction. View "Hernandez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In the 1990s, as a young teenager, Alimbaev, a citizen of Uzbekistan, attended a few services led by Nazarov, an imam who was accused by the Uzbek government of preaching violence and plotting a government takeover. In 2001, Alimbaev came to the U.S. as a visitor, overstayed his visa, and became involved with other supporters of Nazarov. He is currently married, for the second time, to a U.S. citizen, with whom he has two children. He claims to fear persecution and torture if he is removed to Uzbekistan. His application to extend and change the status of his visa contained numerous misrepresentations. There was testimony that Alimbaev relished watching violent terroristic videos, while apparently harboring anti-American sympathies. After a remand, the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed an IJ’s determination and ordered Alimbaev removed. The Third Circuit again vacated the denial of his applications for adjustment of status, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and remanded. The BIA misapplied the clear error standard when reversing the IJ’s finding that Alimbaev’s testimony was credible View "Alimbaev v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground that he waived his right to appeal by departing under an order of removal. The panel held that petitioner's departure alone did not constitute a "considered" and "intelligent" waiver of his right to appeal and therefore did not meet the constitutional requirements of a valid waiver. Furthermore, the IJ's failure to inform petitioner that his departure would constitute a waiver of his previously reserved right to appeal to the BIA rendered petitioner's purported waiver invalid. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Chavez-Garcia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Cristian Aguilar, a Honduran national with temporary protected status, pleaded guilty to the state-jail felony of attempting to evade arrest in a motor vehicle and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. In his application for a writ of habeas corpus, Aguilar alleged that his plea counsel, who gave incorrect advice regarding the immigration consequences of the guilty plea, was ineffective and his plea was involuntary. The Court of Criminal Appeals found, after review, Aguilar had shown he would not have pleaded guilty if he had been correctly advised of the relevant immigration consequences. Therefore, the Court held ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea involuntary and vacated his plea. View "Ex parte Cristian Aguilar" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner's conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence assault under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1203 and 13-3601 was a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E), and thus rendered him removeable. The panel held that the statute was divisible and, under the modified categorical approach, there was a sufficient factual basis to support that petitioner intentionally or knowingly caused any physical injury to his spouse. Therefore, petitioner's misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was a crime of domestic violence under section 1227(a)(2)(E), and he was removeable. View "Cornejo-Villagrana v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's decision ordering petitioner removed to her native El Salvador. The court held that petitioner credibly testified by affidavit that MS-13 threatened and extorted her after her father left El Salvador; MS-13 threatened to kill her children if she did not meet the gang's demands; and she felt terrorized by the threats and fears for her safety and the safety of her children. The court also held that petitioner was persecuted on account of her family membership. Because the BIA did not reach the issue of whether the Salvadoran government was either unwilling or unable to control the gang members who threatened the family, the court remanded for the BIA to consider this factual issue in the first instance. The court vacated the BIA's order denying withholding of removal and remanded. View "Zavaleta-Policiano v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner Liying Qiu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, sought asylum and withholding of removal based on her status as a Christian who did not agree with China’s state-sanctioned version of Christianity, and as a woman who violated China’s one-child policy by having three children. Her application was denied by the immigration court in 2011, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision in March 2013. In December 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen based on the significantly increased persecution of Christians in China in 2014 and 2015. The BIA denied her motion to reopen as untimely. Amongst the evidence submitted in support of her application, Petitioner submitted a portion of the 2015 annual report issued by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, an independent, bipartisan U.S. government entity that monitored religious freedom violations globally and made policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. The BIA held that Petitioner had not submitted sufficient evidence to show a change in country conditions, and thus that her motion to reopen was untimely under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C). The Tenth Circuit found the BIA abused its discretion in denying Petitioner's application: "surely Congress did not intend for 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C) to protect only petitioners who file frivolous asylum applications under no threat of persecution, while extending no help to petitioners who seek reopening after an existing pattern of persecution becomes dramatically worse. The BIA’s reasoning would lead to an absurd result, one we cannot condone." The Court held that a significant increase in the level of persecution constituted a material change in country conditions for purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C) and that the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to assess and consider a petitioner’s evidence that the persecution of others in his protected category has substantially worsened since the initial application. The Court concluded the BIA provided no rational, factually supported reason for denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen, and accordingly remanded this case back to the BIA for further consideration. View "Qiu v. Sessions" on Justia Law