Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Kosh, a Liberian citizen, arrived in the U.S. in 2001 with a false Portuguese passport and requested entry under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), 8 U.S.C. 1187(a). Like all VWP entrants, Kosh signed waived any right “to contest, other than on the basis of an application for asylum, any action for removal.” Kosh confessed his Portuguese passport was fake and sought asylum. Kosh feared returning to Liberia, which had an ongoing civil war. His father had been murdered and Kosh was arrested before escaping and fleeing to the U.S. The IJ granted Kosh asylum. Kosh married and had four children. He left the U.S. in 2005 using his refugee travel document and apparently re-entered that year.Kosh was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing false and fraudulent income tax returns. USCIS denied Kosh’s application to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. His criminal convictions could make him ineligible for adjustment of status, but DHS can waive inadmissibility “for humanitarian purposes.” An IJ reopened Kosh’s asylum-only proceeding and terminated his asylum status. Kosh argued that DHS, instead of reopening his earlier proceedings, should have filed removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1229a, which would allow him to seek adjustment of status.The Third Circuit granted Kosh’s motion for a stay of removal and vacated. If Kosh re-entered the country as an asylee without signing a new VWP form, he is entitled to complete-jurisdiction proceedings in which he can raise an adjustment-of-status claim. View "Kosh Ishmael v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Santos-Zacaria, a noncitizen in removal proceedings, was denied protection from removal. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Santos-Zacaria’s petition for review in part, finding that she had not satisfied 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1)’s (Judicial Review of Orders of Removal) exhaustion requirement, which it raised sua sponte based on its characterization of 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional. Santos-Zacaria did not raise her impermissible fact-finding claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in a motion for reconsideration before filing her petition for judicial review.The Supreme Court vacated in part. Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional. To ensure that courts impose the harsh consequences of jurisdictional rules only when Congress unmistakably has so instructed, a rule is treated as jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” Section 1252(d)(1) lacks a clear statement. Exhaustion requirements are quintessential claim-processing rules, designed to promote efficiency in litigation. Section 1252(d)(1)’s language differs substantially from the jurisdictional language in related statutory provisions. Section 1252(d)(1) requires exhausting only remedies available “as of right,” meaning review that is guaranteed, not discretionary. Reconsideration by the BIA, however, is discretionary. The right to request discretionary review does not make a remedy available as of right. The Court noted the practical problems that would arise under the government’s interpretation. View "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland" on Justia Law

Banuelos-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, arrived in the U.S. in 1999. DHS began removal proceedings in 2010. Those proceedings were administratively closed and re-calendared at the Department’s request. In 2017, Arkansas police arrested Banuelos-Jimenez following a “screaming” incident with his wife. He pleaded guilty to, third-degree assault on a family or household member. DHS re-initiated removal proceedings.Banuelos-Jimenez applied for cancellation of removal. An IJ denied his application, concluding that the Arkansas statute was a crime of violence: Banuelos-Jimenez acted at least recklessly and that “crimes of violence” encompass not only crimes that require specific intent but also reckless conduct. The BIA affirmed. Despite the Supreme Court’s 2021 “Borden” holding that a crime of violence does not encompass reckless conduct, the BIA concluded that Banuelos-Jimenez’s conviction was a crime of violence—his conduct was also purposeful and necessarily involved a threat of force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The Arkansas conviction is categorically a crime of violence because it involves the “threatened use of force against the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. 16(a). While the statute may not require the perpetrator to intend actual harm, he still intends to threaten harm. View "Banuelos-Jimenez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Turcios-Flores and her husband operated merchant stands in Honduras and were subject to a “war tax” imposed by the MS-13 gang. Turcios-Flores’s husband inherited a farm, where they grew coffee and plantains, careful not to reveal their ownership. A cousin later joined MS-13 and shared Turcios-Flores’s secret landownership. MS-13 demanded additional payment in an amount 100 times greater than what the family had previously paid, threatening to kill her husband. Turcios-Flores’s husband fled to the U.S. alone, hoping that MS-13 would stop threatening his family. The gang then threatened Turcios-Flores herself. Turcios-Flores complied. MS-13 increased their demands, warning Turcios-Flores that her children would be killed if she did not pay. The police only offered her a phone number to call if gang members returned. Turcios-Flores and her children entered the U.S. without the required entry documents. She filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on behalf of her and her sons.The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief. The Sixth Circuit granted a petition for review, in part. The Board correctly denied Turcios-Flores’s application for CAT protection and her asylum application insofar as it relates to her membership in her husband’s family. The decision with respect to two of Turcios-Flores’s additional proposed social groups (rural landowners or farmers, single mothers living without male protection) was not supported by substantial evidence, however, and the withholding-of-removal analysis was flawed. View "Turcios-Flores v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. Petitioner is an auto mechanic from Guatemala. He testified that in February 2013, he took the bus to buy some tools. On the bus ride home, three men robbed him and the other passengers on the bus. He did not see the faces of two of the robbers. One of the men pressed a knife against Petitioner’s right side and took one of his cell phones and his wallet. The Attorney General initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. He then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Petitioner argued that he was persecuted for his “anti-gang” political opinion and for his membership in the particular social group of witnesses who cooperate with law enforcement. The IJ denied his application, concluding that Petitioner did not show that his proposed social group is cognizable. Petitioner appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ’s decision. Petitioner appealed the BIA’s decision.   The Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review. The court explained that it agrees with the BIA that Petitioner has not proven that his proposed social group is socially distinct. Further, neither the BIA nor the IJ applied a presumption against Petitioner’s asylum claim on the ground that private, not government, actors allegedly persecuted him. And even if they had, remand would be unnecessary because the court already concluded that Petitioner has not proven membership in a cognizable social group. View "Jaime Oxlaj v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Petitioner concedes that he is removable but seeks cancellation of removal based on the hardship his removal would cause his family. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation, and Petitioner petitioned the court for review. Petitioner’s challenge is twofold. First, he contends that the IJ and the BIA failed to use the proper legal standard to assess his eligibility for discretionary relief. Second, he argued that the BIA erred by failing to remand his case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence as well as a potential grant of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the IJ and BIA thoroughly considered each of Petitioner’s hardship arguments and applied the appropriate legal standard. The BIA also considered the new evidence presented by Petitioner but concluded that this evidence was unlikely to change the IJ’s decision. The record supports the conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that the consequences of his removal are “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves his country.” Further, Petitioner did not present this argument to the BIA, and a petitioner “must fairly present an issue to the BIA to satisfy Section 1252(d)’s exhaustion requirement.” View "Rangel Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Petitioner, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States illegally in 2016. After DHS charged him with being subject to removal Petitioner filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied relief from removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's unexhausted claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination, and the agency committed no errors of law in that ruling. View "Santos Garcia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition challenging a final administrative removal order on grounds that Petitioner derived United States citizenship as a child, holding that there was no error.Petitioner, who was born in India, entered the U.S. as a child without lawful immigration status. Petitioner was later convicted by a Massachusetts state court of second-degree murder and sentenced in life in prison. After Petitioner was granted parole, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged him with being removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. In response, Petitioner asserted that he was not removable because he had derived U.S. citizenship from his mother pursuant to former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. DNA rejected Petitioner's reading of former section 321(a) and ordered him removed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that his arguments contesting removability were unavailing. View "Sharma v. Garland" on Justia Law

Caldera-Torres, a citizen of Mexico in the U.S. without permission, sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4), 1229b(b)(1). To be eligible for that relief an alien must show that he has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence. Caldera-Torres has a Wisconsin conviction for battery, arising from an attack on the mother of his daughter. An IJ and the BIA concluded that this conviction makes Caldera-Torres ineligible.The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting Caldera-Torres’s argument that, although Wis. Stat. 940.19(1) qualifies as a federal “crime of violence,” it is not a crime of domestic violence, because the victim’s identity is not an element of the offense. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) does not say or imply that the “protected person” aspect of the definition must be an element of the crime. It is enough that the victim’s status as a “protected person” be established. A “crime of domestic violence” is a generic “crime of violence” plus the victim’s status as a “protected person.” All other circuits that have addressed section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) recently have held that the victim’s status as a “protected person” need not be an element of the crime of conviction. It is irrelevant how Wisconsin classified Caldera-Torres’s conviction for its own purposes. View "Caldera-Torres v. Garland" on Justia Law

Cortez-Amador, age 16, fled from Guatemala in 2016, following his father’s murder by gang members. He entered the U.S. without inspection and was placed by in his sister’s custody. In 2020, USCIS granted him Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which is available after a juvenile court finds it would not be in the child’s best interest to return to their country of last habitual residence. An SIJS recipient may pursue legal permanent residency.In 2019, while awaiting his SIJS classification, Cortez-Amador was charged with sexual assault on a child under the age of 13. He pleaded guilty to nonsexual child endangerment and admitted giving the alleged victim a cigarette. He was sentenced to 364 days' incarceration. Charged as removable, Cortez-Amador argued that his SIJS exempted him from removal; he should be granted an adjustment of status; and he was entitled to asylum (8 U.S.C. 1158), withholding of removal (1231(b)(3)), and/or Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection because the group that killed his father would target him in Guatemala.An IJ denied relief. The BIA affirmed, agreeing that SIJS parole applies for adjustment of status only, not removal; that the IJ properly exercised its discretion in denying an adjustment of status; and that any harm did not rise to the level of past persecution, so Cortez-Amador had no objectively reasonable fear of future harm. The Third Circuit rejected a petition for review, stating that the agency decisions do not reflect any error of law or are otherwise supported by substantial evidence. View "Cortez-Amador v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law