Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Al-Hasani was born in Syria in 1966. He worked there as a human rights lawyer. In 2003, Al-Hasani married Khalili, who lived in Morocco. After their son was born, the Syrian government imposed a travel ban on Al-Hasani, preventing him from seeing his family. In 2005, Al-Hasani married fellow Syrian, Jouni. He did not divorce Khalili; Syrian law did not require it. Jouni gave birth to Al-Hasani’s son. In 2009, Al-Hasani was arrested for crimes including “weakening the State’s ‘prestige.’” In 2011, Al-Hasani was released but Wikileaks reported that Al-Hasani had provided human rights information to the U.S. Al-Hasani fled Syria that day, but Jouni stayed in Damascus. Al-Hasani was paroled into the United States in 2011. In 2012, he was granted permanent resident status. Al-Hasani described legal barriers to divorce in Syria and the associated stigma. He eventually divorced Khalili in New Jersey. Al-Hasani contends he never lived in a marital relationship with both women at the same time. Al-Hasani applied for naturalization, describing the circumstances of his two marriages.USCIS denied his application because polygamy is a statutory bar to a finding of "good moral character” required for naturalization, 8 U.S.C. 1427(a). The Third Circuit upheld summary judgment for the government. An individual seeking to naturalize as a U.S. citizen has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence"that he meets all of the requirements. The polygamy bar is not ambiguous as applied to Al-Hasani. View "Al-Hasani v. Secretary United States Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The BIA denied Petitioner’s request for cancellation of removal based on the failure to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his United States-citizen children. The BIA granted voluntary departure to Mexico. Petitioner then discovered evidence of substandard attorney performance by his attorney before the IJ and filed a timely motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner also submitted evidence obtained between the final order and the motion to reopen, asserting that two of his children suffered from emotional- and mental-health issues that could not be adequately addressed in Mexico. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, holding that even if counsel had been unprepared before the IJ, different counsel represented Petitioner in the initial appeal to the BIA.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court found no abuse of discretion. The court explained that here, considering all of the evidence presented, the BIA rationally determined that the addition of the later-submitted evidence of emotional- and mental health issues failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The evidence demonstrated neither that the health issues were severe nor that treatment would be unavailable in Mexico. The BIA also rationally determined there had been no showing of prejudice associated with the claim of attorney ineffectiveness. Further, on appeal, Petitioner failed to articulate how the initial counsel’s failures affected the outcome. View "Ignacio Trejo-Gamez v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge found Petitioner not credible and denied her application. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s credibility decision. In addition to challenging the adverse credibility finding, Petitioner claimed for the first time that the border interview record was improperly admitted into evidence at the IJ hearing. The BIA rejected that argument as waived and also rejected it on the merits. Petitioner petitioned the Second Circuit for review.   The Second Circuit granted in part, denied in part, and vacated the BIA’s decision. The court explained that the immigration judge failed to consider various factors that may have affected the reliability of the border interview record. Petitioner claimed that she was frightened during the interview because a border patrol officer hit her and yelled at her upon her arrival to the United States. Petitioner may also have been reluctant to reveal information about persecution because authorities in her home country were allegedly unwilling to help her due to her indigenous status. Moreover, the questions asked during Petitioner’s border interview generally were not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim. The court explained that in Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, it cautioned immigration judges to consider these factors and others before relying on a border interview to find an asylum applicant not credible. Consistent with Ramsameachire and subsequent precedent, the court wrote that immigration judges are required to take such precautions. View "Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged with importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 952(a). Her lawyer told her that if she pleaded guilty, it was “very likely” that she would be deported. She nonetheless entered the plea. Defendant then learned that her offense did not just possibly make her deportable, it automatically did so. She then moved to withdraw her plea, alleging that if she had known the full scope of the immigration consequences of her plea, she would not have entered it. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and sentenced her. Defendant appealed. At issue is whether a lawyer’s warning of “very likely” deportation satisfies the right to effective assistance of counsel.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that when defense counsel tells an alien client that a conviction will have serious immigration consequences, including “very likely” deportation, that defendant has received sufficient advice to make an informed plea decision, as required by the Sixth Amendment. The court explained that there is some ambiguity about what specific words Defendant’s lawyer used when explaining to her the immigration consequences of the plea. But the district court’s factual finding—which is reviewed only for clear error—suggests the following bottom line: Defendant’s lawyer put her on notice of the risk of serious immigration consequences, including deportation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea. View "USA v. Armendariz" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a Sudanese national born in 1991 in modern-day South Sudan. He entered the United States as a refugee in 2003. In 2012, following juvenile felony and misdemeanor convictions, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings when Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder and unlawful firearm possession and sentenced to 264 months imprisonment. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Petitioner ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the latest conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime. Petitioner appealed the denial of CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed the appeal.   The Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review. The court explained that Petitioner presented no specific evidence that the government attacks “political opponents” because they were child soldiers in a civil war that ended before South Sudan’s independence. Next, the court wrote that it agrees with the BIA that Petitioner has not shown in his “hypothetical chain of events” that “it was more likely than not that each link in the chain would occur.” Moreover, the court found that even if Petitioner were incarcerated, he presented no evidence showing that conditions inside the prison would amount to torture. View "Mongong Deng v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Munoz, a citizen of Honduras, moved to Guatemala but never acquired lawful status there. She entered into a relationship with Mazariegos, with whom she had two daughters. Mazariegos began a relationship with another woman, Oneida. Munoz and her children left Guatemala for the United States. She applied for asylum, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), withholding of removal, section 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the Convention Against Torture. At her credible fear interview, Munoz stated that she was afraid of Oneida who had insulted and threatened her; she stated that she had not been physically harmed by anyone. She also stated that the police would protect her in Guatemala. She later claimed that she was the victim of domestic violence and asserted that the police would not help a foreigner. She feared the harassment would continue if she went to Honduras. She later changed her story and denied any physical violence but alleged kidnapping of her daughter.The IJ held that Munoz’s testimony was not credible based on the cumulative effect of the inconsistent, vague, and evasive testimony, and thus she did not meet her burden under the REAL ID Act; documentary evidence did not rehabilitate her claim. The BIA affirmed, agreeing that the testimony was inconsistent, implausible, and vague, and ordered removal. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the denial of relief to be supported by substantial evidence. View "Munoz-Rivera v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These officials exercise significant authority within our immigration system, making them officers under the Appointments Clause.   The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members, and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A), as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that there was no error below.Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) found her removable and directed El Salvador as the country for removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the IJ's factual findings, and the BIA committed no errors of law in its ruling; and (2) Petitioner waived her claim regarding the BIA's denial of CAT relief. View "Montoya-Lopez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Africa who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2012, pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft predicated on wire fraud. In the plea agreement, Petitioner admitted that she “aided and abetted” her mother in the mother’s scheme of “defrauding” the State of California of $475,350.28.The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") charged Petitioner as removable, characterizing her conviction as a conviction for an offense involving “fraud or deceit” with a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000, thus qualifying as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). In so holding, the BIA determined that the elements of the identity theft offense included a reference in the alternative to several qualifying felony offenses, and required as an element that the identity theft be committed “during and in relation to” one of the other qualifying felonies.Petitioner appealed, arguing her conviction did not qualify under the categorical approach as an offense involving fraud or deceit. She also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). An immigration judge rejected Petitioner's arguments, as did the BIA. Petitioner appealed.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that the BIA appeals did not err in concluding that Petitioner's conviction was a qualifying aggravated felony based on her express admission that she had aided and abetted a scheme to defraud a victim of more than $475,000. Further, the Eighth Circuit found that the BIA did not apply the wrong legal standard in finding Petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal and did not err in denying CAT relief. View "Chantelle Robbertse v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

In 1999, Kolov sought asylum and related protections. Kolov was removed to Bulgaria in 2012. In 2014, Kolov reentered the U.S. His prior removal order was reinstated. In an interview, Kolov indicated that he was a member of the “Roma” ethnic group and had been subjected to harassment, abuse, and physical violence in Bulgaria; the police were not interested in protecting the Roma. The asylum officer referred his case for withholding-only proceedings. Before his hearing, Kolov submitted a Form I-589, assisted by counsel, listing the same incidents that he described in his interview. At his 2019 hearing, Kolov was represented by counsel and testified in English. He recounted a 2012 incident for the first time. Kolov’s wife testified that she noticed that Kolov had bruises on several occasions during video calls when he was in Bulgaria. Kolov also submitted statements from family and friends, news articles, and country condition materials.The IJ denied Kolov’s application for relief, finding Kolov not credible regarding the alleged incidents of persecution; Kolov’s explanation for the omissions, that he was nervous and under stress, was “not credible.” The IJ concluded that Kolov failed to show government acquiescence to torture. The BIA found that Kolov’s omissions were substantially related to his claim and rendered him not credible. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The BIA’s decision contains no legal error. View "Kolov v. Garland" on Justia Law