Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed her conviction for having knowingly procured her naturalization contrary to law in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1425(a). Defendant made several false statements in procuring her naturalization. The issues on appeal are whether the government met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements were material, as that element of the Section 1425(a) offense was defined in Maslenjak v. United States, 582 U.S. 335 (2017), and whether they were made “under oath.”
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Defendant argued that the false statements were immaterial because they did not necessarily establish she lacked good moral character. The court disagreed, reasoning that 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(f) provides that “no person shall be regarded as, or found to be, a person of good moral character who” gives false testimony to obtain an immigration benefit in violation of Section 1101(f)(6). Moreover, Defendant argued that “false testimony” is limited to false statements given verbally under oath. As the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the false statements in her N-400 Application for Naturalization were given orally and under oath, the government failed to present sufficient evidence, and we “need not even address materiality.” The court explained that the district court t was free to find the testimony of a USCIS supervisory officer more credible than the contrary opinion of Defendant’s expert, who admitted she had never attended a naturalization interview in Des Moines. Accordingly, the court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could find she acted to obtain immigration benefits for her spouse. View "United States v. Deanah Cheboss" on Justia Law

For over four decades, immigration judges employed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review have collectively bargained through a certified union. Four years ago, that office asked the Federal Labor Relations Authority to determine that immigration judges are management officials barred from inclusion in a bargaining unit. The Authority agreed. Following an unsuccessful reconsideration motion, and with a second reconsideration motion still pending before the Authority, the union petitioned this court for review of both the Authority’s initial decision and its decision denying reconsideration. The union contends that, in issuing those decisions, the Authority violated the union’s substantive and procedural due process rights.   The DC Circuit dismissed the petition. The court explained that the Union’s petition for review was incurably premature—including with respect to the Initial Order—even though the Union’s second reconsideration motion sought reconsideration of only the First Reconsideration Order, not the Initial Order. The court wrote that a contrary conclusion would disserve the central purpose of the incurable prematurity doctrine. “There is good reason to prohibit any litigant from pressing its cause concurrently upon both the judicial and the administrative fronts: a favorable decision from the agency might yet obviate the need for review by the court.” And here, as in Tennessee Gas, a favorable agency decision on the second reconsideration motion pending before it could have obviated the need for judicial review of both the order initially denying reconsideration and the underlying order. View "National Association of Immigration Judges v. FLRA" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his habeas petition to vacate his 2006 guilty plea, conviction, and sentence. Defendant asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not warn him of the risks of denaturalization and possible subsequent deportation arising from his guilty plea.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. Effective assistance includes warning defendants of the “direct” consequences of pleading guilty, such as the offense’s maximum prison term and the likely sentence as set forth in a plea agreement. However, the court explained that it has long held that an attorney need not warn of every possible “collateral consequence of conviction. And such collateral consequences are “categorically removed from the scope of the Sixth Amendment.” Thus, a defendant can only establish an ineffective assistance claim as to a collateral consequence if his attorney affirmatively misadvises him. Failing to warn of the collateral risk alone is not enough. The court explained that the instant appeal is resolved by the straightforward application of this direct/collateral framework. Accordingly, the court held that the distinction remains valid, that it applies to civil denaturalization, and that such denaturalization is a collateral consequence of the conviction, and so is not covered by the Sixth Amendment’s right to effective assistance of counsel. View "Farhane v. United States" on Justia Law

Wojciechowicz came to the U.S. in the 1980s. In 1999 he married a U.S. citizen, with whom he has two children. He became a lawful permanent resident in 2004. Wojciechowicz stole over $100,000 in connection with window installation jobs. He pleaded guilty to state charges in 2011 and was sentenced to two years of probation and restitution. In 2019 Wojciechowicz traveled to Poland for his sister’s funeral. When he attempted to reenter the U.S., Customs officials determined his convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude and rendered him inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). In removal proceedings, Wojciechowicz unsuccessfully sought a waiver of inadmissibility. An IJ concluded that he had failed to show extreme hardship and that the severity of his prior crimes weighed against waiver as a discretionary matter. The BIA affirmed; the Seventh Circuit dismissed a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.Days before his removal date, Wojciechowicz received a pardon from Governor Pritzker for his convictions. The BIA stayed his removal but declined to reopen removal proceedings. ICE—in violation of the stay and with no explanation— removed Wojciechowicz to Poland. The Seventh Circuit denied a second petition for review. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a pardon does not make an otherwise inadmissible noncitizen admissible, even if a pardon can save a resident noncitizen from being removed. View "Wojciechowicz v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) brought by Petitioners, several Peruvian nationals who were ordered removed from the United States, holding that Petitioners were not entitled to relief on their claims.Petitioners brought claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture, contending that, if returned to Peru, they feared being seriously physically harmed or killed due to their former involvement with the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) political party. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Petitioners removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's ruling that Petitioners had failed to make the requisite showing regarding government involvement. View "Vila-Castro v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner sought to reopen his immigration proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. The BIA found that he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal because he did not submit new evidence that would likely change the result in his case. The parties disagree on a threshold issue—whether the BIA applied the correct burden of proof.   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review. The panel clarified any possible confusion in this circuit’s case law regarding a petitioner’s burden of proof in a motion to reopen. Prima facie eligibility for relief requires only a threshold showing of eligibility—a “reasonable likelihood” that the petitioner would prevail on the merits if the motion to reopen was granted. To be eligible for a discretionary grant of relief, a petitioner must present new evidence that “would likely change” the result in the case. Because the BIA erred by applying the wrong legal standard, the panel remanded to the BIA to adjudicate the motion to reopen under the proper standard. View "MARIO FONSECA-FONSECA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Defendant filed an Application for Naturalization (Form N-400), on which she certified under penalty of perjury that she had never “committed a crime or offense for which she was NOT arrested.” Defendant was charged in 2012 with healthcare fraud and conspiracy crimes. In 2012, Lopez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering. In 2021, the United States filed a complaint in the district court to revoke Defendant’s naturalization. The complaint alleged   had illegally procured her naturalization on the ground that she had failed to meet the requirement of “good moral character.” The government moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Defendant had illegally procured her naturalization because she had committed a crime of moral turpitude during the statutory period. The district court granted that motion. It concluded that the conspiracy crime to which Defendant pleaded guilty overlapped with the statutory “good moral character.”   The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The court explained that structuring a transaction to avoid a reporting requirement, as defined by 18 U.S.C. section 1956(a)(1)(B)(ii), is also not a crime categorically involving moral turpitude. The offense does not necessarily involve fraud. And, although the crime arguably involves deceit, it does not necessarily involve an activity that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved.” Thus, the court held that a violation of section 1956(a)(1)(B) is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude. View "USA v. Lisette Lopez" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7), holding that the BIA neither committed a material error of law nor acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or irrationally.Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was charged as removable for being present in the United States without having been admitted. Petitioner conceded the charge and sought asylum. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the asylum application because Petitioner failed to establish that he was targeted based on a protected ground. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting that the applicable time limit should be equitably tolled due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's untimely motion to reopen and declining to equitably toll the deadline. View "Yoc Esteban v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her son entered the United States illegally after fleeing alleged gang violence in Honduras. They sought asylum and related relief but were denied; their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was likewise dismissed. Petitioner then moved the BIA to reopen her and her son’s removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion. Petitioner petitioned for a review of that denial.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction over the BIA’s refusal to reopen Petitioner, and it otherwise rejects her claims on the merits. The court explained that there is no per se rule that every family-based PSG is cognizable. Congress did not make persecution based on “family” a statutorily enumerated ground for asylum or withholding of removal. The court wrote that Petitioner was required to put forward at least some evidence of the social distinction of her son’s nuclear family in Honduran society. Because she did not, she failed to make out a prima facie case of eligibility for withholding of removal or asylum. The consequence is that she failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by allegedly ineffective counsel. The BIA did not err in denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her withholding-of-removal and asylum claims. Moreover, the court explained that attempting to raise a due process claim through an argument about the BIA’s failure to reopen sua sponte does not bring the claim within the court’s jurisdiction. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted Petitioner's petition seeking to have her removal proceedings reopened and vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals rejecting her motion to reopen her removal proceedings pursuant to the Board's sua sponte authority, holding that remand was required.At the age of nine, Petitioner entered the United States from El Salvador without inspection to join her mother, who entered without inspection four years earlier. An immigration judge found Petitioner deportable and granted her a five-month period of voluntary departure. The Board affirmed. Thereafter, Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100. Petitioner later sought to have her removal proceedings reopened so that her request for suspension of deportation could be adjudicated according to the substantive NACARA standards. The Board ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the proceeding after construing Petitioner's filing as a motion seeking relief under NACARA. The First Circuit granted relief, holding (1) there is no reason why NACARA should not be read as implicitly divesting the Board of its discretion to sua sponte reopen a proceeding; and (2) Petitioner's petition was not time barred. View "Mancia v. Garland" on Justia Law