Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

A five-year-old child and her mother, recently arrived from the Dominican Republic, were staying with family in New Britain, Connecticut. The defendant, who was married to the mother's niece, lived in the same apartment. On New Year's Eve, the defendant sexually assaulted the child. Later that evening at a family party, the child told her mother that the defendant had kissed her, and after further questioning, disclosed more details of the assault. The next day, the mother confronted the defendant, who made incriminating admissions both in person and via text. Police interviewed the defendant at the station after he voluntarily agreed to meet and requested a Spanish-speaking detective. During the interview, which was conversational and not confrontational, the defendant confessed to inappropriate sexual conduct.The Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, denied the defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress his statements to police, finding he was not in custody for Miranda purposes. At trial, the court admitted the child’s statements to her mother under the spontaneous utterance exception to hearsay, and limited the testimony of the defense expert regarding the U visa program, which provides immigration benefits to victims of certain crimes who cooperate with law enforcement. The jury convicted the defendant of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child.On direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the defendant argued the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, admitting the victim’s hearsay statements, and restricting expert testimony, and further sought review of confidential personnel records of one detective. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court properly denied the suppression motion, as the defendant was not in custody. The admission of the child’s statements was error but harmless, given other strong evidence. The limitations on the expert’s testimony did not deny due process or affect the verdict. Review of the confidential records revealed no material requiring disclosure. The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Connecticut v. Lazaro D." on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Honduras fled to the United States in 2016 after members of the MS gang targeted him and his brother, allegedly due to their refusal to join the gang. After suffering threats, extortion, and a kidnapping in Honduras, he relocated within the country but continued to receive threats. Fearing for his safety, he eventually left for the United States, where his family later joined him. He expressed fear that returning to Honduras would result in serious harm or death at the hands of the gang.Removal proceedings were initiated against him by the Department of Homeland Security, and an Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), but his asylum application was filed about fourteen months late. At his merits hearing, the IJ found his testimony credible but determined that he had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing. The IJ denied his asylum application as untimely and also denied his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection, finding that the harm he suffered was not severe enough to constitute persecution and that he failed to show a nexus between the harm and the proposed social groups. The IJ further noted he did not demonstrate the Honduran government was unable or unwilling to protect him.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, determining that he had not established extraordinary circumstances for the asylum application’s untimeliness, and that he had waived his CAT claim and the issue of government protection by failing to meaningfully challenge these findings before the Board.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination regarding extraordinary circumstances under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) and found that the petitioner had forfeited the necessary government protection element for withholding of removal. The court denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Osabas-Rivera v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A woman from Peru entered the United States in 2013 without valid documents and was later placed in removal proceedings. She conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, primarily based on years of physical and sexual abuse she experienced from her former partner, Mauro. She described a lengthy relationship characterized by escalating violence, failed police protection, and threats involving their child. De La Cruz claimed she was persecuted due to her membership in several proposed social groups, mostly linked to her status as a Peruvian woman in various familial or social configurations, and she submitted evidence about gender-based violence in Peru.The Immigration Judge found De La Cruz credible and her asylum application timely but denied all forms of relief. The judge concluded that the abuse she suffered was not on account of a statutorily protected ground, but rather arose from personal disputes within the relationship. As such, the judge found no sufficient nexus between the harm and the protected grounds necessary for asylum or withholding of removal, and determined her fear of future torture was speculative and unsupported for CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the Immigration Judge applied the correct legal standards and did not clearly err in the factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, applying substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that there was no nexus between the harm suffered and a protected ground, and agreed that the fear of future torture was too speculative to warrant CAT protection. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "De La Cruz-Quispe v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Mexico entered the United States in 2016 and, in 2024, pleaded guilty to eight criminal offenses in New Mexico, including child abuse and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The child abuse conviction was based on an incident in which he punched a child in the lip. The aggregate sentence for all convictions was approximately 21.5 years. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his child abuse conviction qualified as a removable offense under federal law, and that the aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony.An Immigration Judge denied the petitioner’s motion to terminate the proceedings, sustaining both charges of removability. The petitioner’s counsel declined to seek any further relief from removal, reserving only the right to appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals considered the case next, focusing on whether the New Mexico child abuse statute fit the federal definition of a removable “crime of child abuse.” Applying the categorical approach, the Board concluded that the statute matched the federal standard and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, not addressing the aggravated assault conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that the petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that New Mexico would apply its child abuse statute in a way broader than the federal definition. The court also determined that the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of whether his aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony, because he had multiple convictions with aggregate sentences exceeding five years within seven years of his admission as a permanent resident. Finding no basis for remand or relief, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santiago v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Three citizens of El Salvador entered the United States in 2014 and were subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security. They conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied all three forms of relief.The petitioners appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), indicating their intention to file a supporting brief. Their attorney filed a notice of appearance using a post office box as her address. The BIA granted an extension to file the brief, and on the new deadline, the petitioners submitted their brief, but it listed the attorney’s physical address instead of the post office box. The BIA rejected the brief due to the address discrepancy and instructed the petitioners to file with the correct address. The petitioners re-filed the brief with the post office box address, but the BIA rejected it as untimely and required a motion for late filing. The petitioners complied, but the BIA ultimately denied their motion, finding their rationale insufficient, and later summarily dismissed the appeal because no timely brief had been filed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s actions for abuse of discretion. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by rejecting the timely brief based on an address discrepancy that was not mandated by regulation or the BIA’s published procedures. The court further held that summarily dismissing the appeal for failure to file a brief, when a timely brief had in fact been submitted, was irrational and an unexplained departure from established policies. The Sixth Circuit granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA’s order. View "Pineda-Guerra v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Haitian national, Jonalson Dor, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In August 2018, he pled guilty in Massachusetts state court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under Massachusetts law. At that time, both state and federal law included "hemp" in the definition of "marijuana." In December 2018, Congress amended the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to exclude "hemp" from its definition of "marijuana." The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Dor in 2019, originally based on earlier marijuana convictions. Those convictions were later vacated, and in 2023, DHS amended its charges, basing Dor’s removability on his 2018 conviction.An Immigration Judge in Boston denied Dor’s motion to terminate the proceedings, holding that the relevant version of the CSA was the one in effect at the time of the criminal conviction, not at the time of removal. The judge found Dor removable under the INA’s controlled substance provision. Dor appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s decision on March 18, 2025, agreeing that the time of conviction was the controlling point for determining if a state conviction matches the federal controlled substance definition.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether the definition of a “controlled substance” under the INA should reference the CSA as it existed at the time of conviction or at the time of removal proceedings. The court joined other circuits in holding that the relevant CSA definition is the one in effect at the time of conviction. Because Dor’s 2018 conviction categorically matched the federal definition then in force, the court denied his petition for review and upheld the removal order. View "Dor v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran woman and her two daughters entered the United States unlawfully after the woman, who owned a beauty salon in El Salvador, was allegedly threatened by men she believed to be gang members. She claimed that after paying them “rent” for two years, she stopped making payments and was threatened with violence. Fearing for her safety and that of her daughters, she sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States, arguing she would be targeted in El Salvador as a Salvadoran woman and as a business owner.An immigration judge denied her applications, finding her not credible and concluding she had not established membership in a legally cognizable particular social group (PSG), nor shown that she could not reasonably relocate within El Salvador to avoid harm. The immigration judge also determined she failed to meet the standards for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, agreeing that her proposed PSGs—“Salvadoran women,” “single Salvadoran women who are working professionals,” and “salon owners in El Salvador”—were not cognizable and that she could reasonably relocate. The Board also upheld the denial of her CAT claim, finding no particularized threat or evidence of government acquiescence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and denied the petition for review. The court held that none of the proposed PSGs were sufficiently particular or socially distinct to qualify under the relevant statutes and precedent. The court further concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the petitioner could reasonably relocate within El Salvador and that she had not demonstrated a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence necessary for CAT relief. View "Cristales-de Linares v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Punjab, India, who practices the Sikh faith and is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Mann) political party, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture after entering the United States. He claimed to have suffered harm from rival political groups, specifically citing three incidents: a verbal threat to leave the Mann party, two brief physical assaults requiring minor medical treatment, and one night of detention by local police after the second assault. After the first assault, he relocated to live with his in-laws about 35 to 40 kilometers away, where he had no further problems for six months.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner credible but concluded that the incidents did not amount to past persecution and determined he could reasonably relocate within India to avoid future harm. The Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief and ordered removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that the cumulative harm did not rise to the level of persecution and that the petitioner could avoid future persecution by relocating internally, given his prior successful relocation and evidence that low-level Mann party members faced no legal obstacles to relocation. The BIA also denied protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding the petitioner failed to meaningfully challenge the Immigration Judge’s conclusions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for substantial evidence. The court held that the alleged harms, viewed individually or cumulatively, did not compel a finding of past persecution and that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that the petitioner could reasonably avoid future persecution by relocating within India. The court denied the petition for review. View "SINGH V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A Colombian man and his family fled to the United States after a violent criminal gang, the Gulf Clan, repeatedly threatened their lives to coerce his support. The threats began after he opened a bakery and escalated to in-person confrontations. Upon receiving an armed threat at his business, he reported the incidents to local police, who responded by stationing a guard at his bakery and blocking threatening phone lines. While in-person threats ceased, the family continued to receive telephonic threats from different numbers. Fearing for their safety, they left Colombia and entered the United States, where they sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.An Immigration Judge found that while the man’s testimony was credible, he failed to establish that the Colombian government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the private gang’s threats. The judge determined that the police had taken meaningful action, including posting a guard and blocking calls, and that the government was both willing and able to provide protection. As a result, the requests for asylum and withholding of removal were denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, agreeing with the Immigration Judge’s assessment that the Colombian authorities had demonstrated willingness and ability to protect the family.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, applying the substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings. The court held that the record supported the agency’s conclusion that the Colombian government was able to protect the family, even if it could not provide absolute security. The court denied the petition for review, finding no error in the agency’s determination or its procedural handling of the case. View "Restrepo Castano v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Ahmadou entered the United States from Niger in 2016 under an F1 student visa. In 2021, he visited a Texas gun range, rented and fired guns, and completed a waiver form that did not list his visa status as a prohibited category for firearm possession under federal law. Investigators connected Ahmadou to an Islamic extremist involved in a 2020 attack, and a search of Ahmadou’s devices revealed extensive ISIS propaganda. Undercover agents were present during his visits, but did not instruct the gun range staff to act differently. Ahmadou was later arrested and admitted his gun range visits were in preparation for potential jihad overseas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ahmadou moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing he was entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation by the gun range’s waiver form. The district judge denied his motion, excluded evidence of the defense, and refused his proposed jury instruction. After trial, a jury found Ahmadou guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and declined to apply the terrorism enhancement, but imposed an above-guidelines sentence, citing Ahmadou’s conduct and associations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because the gun range’s waiver form was not an affirmative misrepresentation, and the firearms dealer was not a federal official or agent for purposes of the defense. The Fifth Circuit also found that denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and the above-guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as it was based on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). View "USA v. Ahmadou" on Justia Law