Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a citizen of Poland, was charged with sexual assault in the fourth degree. The superior court granted Defendant’s application for accelerated rehabilitation. Defendant was subsequently ordered removed from the United States and deported to Poland. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant had failed successfully to complete the accelerated rehabilitation program, terminated Defendant’s participation in the program, and ordered his rearrest on the pending criminal charge. Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court did not reach the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed as moot under State v. Aquino, 901 A.2d 1194 (Conn. 2006). Specifically, the court found that Defendant’s appeal was rendered moot by his deportation because the reason for his deportation was unrelated to the accelerated rehabilitation program or the pending criminal charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Aquino, properly construed, did not control the present case because the record established the reason for Defendant’s deportation; and (2) there was a reasonable possibility that the trial court’s orders would result in prejudicial collateral consequences. View "State v. Jerzy G." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility finding where the IJ determined that petitioner gave equivocal testimony about the reasons for errors in marriage records; petitioner's testimony regarding the critical events underlying her claims for relief were very vague; and the documents submitted by petitioner did not adequately corroborate her testimony. Furthermore, the IJ had no obligation to give petitioner an additional opportunity to bolster her case by submitting further evidence. View "Yali Wang v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its memorandum disposition filed December 14, 2016, denied a petition for rehearing en banc as moot, and filed this opinion reversing defendant's conviction for illegal reentry.After defendant was convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles without a license and was removed from the United States, he returned and was convicted of illegal reentry. The panel held that defendant was not originally removable as charged, and so could not be convicted of illegal reentry. In this case, because the statute was overbroad and indivisible, defendant's conviction under 22 U.S.C. 2778 could not serve as a proper predicate for removal—either as an aggravated felony or a firearms offense. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to vacate his conviction for one count of assault in the first degree and withdraw his plea of no contest to the charge, arguing that the district court erred by failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of conviction before accepting his plea. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of no contest, concluding that that Defendant was advised of an immigration consequence of his plea during the plea colloquy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under State v. Yos-Chiguil, 772 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2009), Defendant proved that instead of reciting the advisement set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(1), the district court improvised an advisement, and therefore, Defendant established the first Yos-Chiguil factor; but (2) Defendant failed to establish the second Yos-Chiguil factor entitling him to relief, that he was facing an immigration consequence that was not included in the advisement actually given. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Gach" on Justia Law

Sene, a citizen of both Mauritania and Senegal, was charged in removal proceedings, alleging that she was admitted to the U.S. in 2000, without a valid entry or travel document. She sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), testifying that she was subjected to female genital mutilation (FGM) and that, when she was 10 years old, Mauritanian military personnel took her family to military barracks, where she was questioned, beaten, forced to work, and raped. She escaped to a refugee camp, eventually moving to Dakar, where she lived for 11 years without problems. She came to the U.S. for a job opportunity, married in 2004, and had a daughter in 2005. She feared that her husband’s family might subject her daughter to FGM. An IJ denied Sene’s applications. The BIA took notice of a State Department Country Report about a 2008 military coup in Mauritania, followed by a deterioration in the human rights situation and remanded. The IJ again denied Sene’s applications and ordered her removal to Senegal; the BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. Sene failed to show that it is more likely than not that she would be subject to persecution in Senegal, “where the country reports indicate that FGM is a criminal offense that is not commonly committed against adult women and the record likewise does not support her fear of any other form of harm.” View "Sene v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Anibal Sanchez, an undocumented worker, brought suit against Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. under the workers’ compensation antiretaliation statute, alleging that Dahlke discharged him because he sought workers’ compensation benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to Dahlke, finding as a matter of law that Sanchez’s unpaid leave was a result of his immigration status and not his workers’ compensation claim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding (1) Sanchez raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Dahlke discharged him and as to whether the discharge was motivated by Sanchez seeking workers’ compensation benefits; and (2) federal immigration law does not preempt an undocumented worker’s claim that his employer discharged him in retaliation for seeking workers’ compensation benefits. View "Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for asylum. The court held that the BIA did not engage in impermissible fact-finding; substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that that there was an insufficient nexus between the threats and petitioner's membership in a community development organization that addressed gang problems in the area; and substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. View "Gomez-Garcia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a ten year old native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the alleged past-persecution of petitioner's mother cannot be imputed to petitioner; petitioner suffered from an isolated, verbal threat of future violence; and petitioner's omissions justified the BIA's refusal to overturn the IJ's adverse credibility determination. Therefore, the BIA correctly held that petitioner did not suffer from a well-found fear of persecution. The court affirmed the denial of relief. View "Herrera Morales v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Eighth Circuit agreed with the IJ and the BIA that the harms petitioner described were not persecution because they were not inflicted by the government or private parties that the government was not able to control. In this case, petitioner asserted that supernatural forces inflicted much of the harm; to the extent petitioner asserted that the Nigerian government was unable or unwilling to control the devil's human agents, substantial evidence showed otherwise; substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner had no objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; and, given the record evidence showing the government's efforts to curtail the torture of suspected witches and wizards, substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of petitioner's request for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Edionseri v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In January 2017, President Trump signed executive order EO-1, "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry," suspending, for 90 days, entry of foreign nationals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, and suspending the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. The Ninth Circuit upheld a nationwide temporary restraining order. The government revoked EO-1. EO-2 issued on March 6, describing conditions in six countries that “demonstrate ... heightened risks to [U.S.] security.” EO–2 section 2(a) directs Homeland Security to determine whether foreign governments provide adequate information about nationals applying for U.S visas and to report those findings to the President within 20 days; nations identified as deficient will have 50 days to alter their practices (2(b)). EO–2 2(c) directs that entry of nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, be suspended for 90 days; section 3(c) provides for case-by-case waivers. Section 6(a) suspends decisions on applications for refugee status and travel of refugees under the USRAP for 120 days; 6(b) suspends refugee entries in excess of 50,000 for this year. The order’s stated effective date is March 16, 2017. The Ninth Circuit again declined to stay a temporary injunction. The Supreme Court stayed the order in part, with respect to sections 2(c), 6(a), and 6(b). An American individual or entity that has a bona fide relationship with a particular person seeking to enter the country can legitimately claim concrete hardship if that person is excluded, even if the 50,000-person cap has been reached. As to these individuals and entities, the Court did not disturb the injunction; as to those lacking any such connection, the balance tips in favor of the government’s compelling interest in security. The Court noted a June 12 Ninth Circuit decision vacating the injunction as to 2(a) and stated that the Executive should conclude its work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90-day life of 2(c). View "Trump. v. International Refugee Assistance Project" on Justia Law