Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The H-1B visa program allows foreign nationals to work in the United States in specialized positions for sponsoring employers. By regulation, any such employer must file amended paperwork with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services whenever it makes a “material change” in the terms of covered employment. In Simeio Solutions, LLC, 26 I & N Dec. 542 (AAO 2015), USCIS interpreted that phrase to include a change in the place of employment. And in an ensuing guidance document, USCIS memorialized this interpretation and exercised discretion to limit its retroactive enforcement. ITServe Alliance, Inc., a trade association representing employers, seeks a declaratory judgment that Simeio and the guidance document are unlawful. ITServe contends that Simeio was a procedurally defective rulemaking and that USCIS lacks statutory authority to require the amended filings.   The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and held that ITServe has Article III standing to raise these arguments, but the court rejected them on the merits. The court explained that because USCIS may consider LCA-related issues in exercising its own authority to approve, disapprove, or revoke H-1B petitions, it may require new or amended petitions corresponding to changes in the place of employment that necessitate the filing of new LCAs. View "ITServe Alliance, Inc. v. DHS" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the denial of his application to adjust his immigration status to lawful permanent resident while in removal proceedings. During two prior arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol, Petitioner falsely presented himself as a U.S. citizen. Based on these incidents, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) found that Petitioner was barred from adjusting status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I), which renders inadmissible “any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under . . . Federal or State law.”   The Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review. The panel concluded that Petitioner’s misrepresentations about his citizenship to police officers for the purpose of avoiding removal proceedings did not render him inadmissible. The panel explained that the key question was what it means for a purpose or benefit to be “under” federal or state law. The BIA concluded that this means that a false claim must be made to achieve a purpose or obtain a benefit that is “governed by” federal or state law. The panel concluded that the BIA’s interpretation was untenable, agreeing with the Third Circuit that its construction was unmoored from the purposes and concerns of the statute. The panel concluded that Petitioner’s misrepresentations about his citizenship to police officers did not trigger Section 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). View "EFRAIN RAMIREZ MUNOZ V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

In 2019, Appellant filed a Form I-140 petition for a work visa under 8 USC Sec. 1153(b)(2) and Form I-485 applications for himself and his spouse to adjust their immigration statuses. Appellant's I-140 petition asserted that he satisfied the requirements to obtain a national-interest waiver under Sec. 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). USCIS declined to grant Appellant's request and denied his request for reconsideration.Appellant sued the US government, challenging the denials of his I-140 petition, his motion for reopening or reconsideration, and his I-485 applications. The Government moved to dismiss Appellant's complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the jurisdictional bar in 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies to national-interest waiver denials. The district court dismissed Appellant's case, citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Appellant claimed the district court erred in concluding that Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars jurisdiction over the denial of an I140 petition. Joining the Ninth, Eleventh, Third and D.C. Circuits, the court affirmed, finding Sec. 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) “expressly and specifically vest discretion in the Attorney General” to deny national-interest waivers. Thus, the jurisdiction bar in Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B) applies. View "Flores v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In its order denying reconsideration, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding that Petitioner, a Salvadoran national whose entire family had fled to the United States, had not established a nexus between his family membership and the threat of persecution as required for his asylum and withholding of removal claims. The Board also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner had not shown acquiescence by public officials as required for his CAT claim.   The Fourth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the petition for review, vacated in part the Board’s order denying reconsideration, and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the Board abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its nexus analysis for the Petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court also held with regard to these two claims that the Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding Petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. However, the court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Board abused its discretion with regard to his CAT claim. The Board provided specific reasons for finding the Petitioner’s testimony insufficient to meet his burden of proof and appropriately evaluated the evidence under the futility exception. View "Marvin A.G. v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law that prioritize the arrest and removal from the U.S. of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently. Texas and Louisiana claimed that the Guidelines contravened federal statutes that require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (1231(a)(2)). The district court found that the states had standing, citing costs they would incur, then found the Guidelines unlawful. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the judgment.The Supreme Court reversed. Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The alleged injury must “be legally and judicially cognizable.” There is no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind; a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Such lawsuits implicate the Executive’s Article II authority to decide how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law, which extends to the immigration context. The Court stated that the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions and that policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have been arrested arguably might raise different standing questions. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law

Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U.S. citizenship through “adult adoption,” earning nearly $2 million from his fraudulent scheme. The government charged Hansen under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which forbids “encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such [activity] is or will be in violation of law.” The Ninth Circuit found Clause (iv) unconstitutionally overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.The Supreme Court reversed. Because 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law, the clause is not unconstitutionally overbroad. A statute is facially invalid under the overbreadth doctrine if it “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.” Here, Congress used “encourage” and “induce” as terms of art referring to criminal solicitation and facilitation (capturing only a narrow band of speech) not as those terms are used in ordinary conversation. Criminal solicitation is the intentional encouragement of an unlawful act, and facilitation—i.e., aiding and abetting—is the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further an offense’s commission. Neither requires lending physical aid; both require an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act. The context of these words and statutory history indicate that Congress intended to refer to their well-established legal meanings. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) reaches no further than the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and does not “prohibi[t] a substantial amount of protected speech” relative to its “plainly legitimate sweep.” View "United States v. Hansen" on Justia Law

Appellant applied for a visa to enter the United States. But the Government denied his application, fearing that he was part of a criminal organization. Appellant and his wife (collectively “Appellants”) — who is an American citizen — filed this suit to challenge that decision. But their suit faced an uphill struggle: With narrow exceptions, a court may not review the government’s decision to deny a visa. To show that their suit fits within an exception, Appellants pointed to a rule allowing American citizens to challenge visa denials that burden their constitutional rights. Appellant’s wife argued that the rule applies because denying her husband a visa interfered with her constitutional right to marriage. The district court rejected that argument and dismissed it.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that though marriage is a fundamental right, it does not include the right to live in America with one’s spouse. So the right is not burdened when the government denies a spouse’s visa application. Further, the court wrote that even if the exception applied, allowing us to review the Government’s visa denial, Appellant’s wife’s challenge would fail on the merits. To survive judicial review, the Government need only cite a statute listing a factual basis for denying a visa. It did that here. View "Kristen Colindres v. DOS" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Salvadoran native, challenged the order to remove him from this country. In 2016, he fled to the United States. When he arrived, he was charged as inadmissible and put into removal proceedings. He conceded that he was removable but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his requests and ordered him removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. He petitioned for review.   The Fourth Circuit granted the petition as to his Convention Against Torture claim, vacated the Board’s order, and remanded. But the court denied his petition for asylum and withholding of removal. The court explained that a Convention claimant must satisfy a two-pronged test, showing both that (1) if he returned home, he would be tortured and (2) the government would acquiesce to that torture. The court wrote that here, neither the immigration judge nor the Board followed the court’s instructions. First, at Step 1A, it is not clear that the immigration judge forecasted what harm Petitioner would likely face back in El Salvador. He found only (at Step 1B) that the threats previously made by police did not amount to torture, so future torture was unlikely. Second, rather than separating the two steps and reviewing Step 1B de novo, the Board affirmed the whole Prong 1 analysis as not clearly erroneous. And third, the Board did the same at Prong 2, reviewing the whole thing for clear errors rather than reviewing Step 2B de novo. View "Mauricio Llanes-Quinteros v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Two noncitizens were determined removable because they had convictions for aggravated felonies, offenses “relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Ninth Circuit concluded that Cordero-Garcia’s state conviction for dissuading a witness from reporting a crime did not constitute an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” because the state offense did not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Pugin’s state conviction for accessory after the fact constituted an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” even if the state offense did not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.The Supreme Court held that an offense may “relat[e] to obstruction of justice” under section 1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. The definition of “aggravated felony,” for purposes of removal, was expanded in 1996 to include offenses “relating to obstruction of justice.” Obstruction of justice is often “most effective” when it prevents an investigation or proceeding from commencing. The phrase “relating to” indicates that the statute covers offenses having a connection with obstruction of justice—which surely covers common obstruction offenses that can occur when an investigation or proceeding is not pending. Even if a specific prohibition in 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) requires that an investigation or proceeding be pending, Congress defined offenses under 1101(a)(43)(S) more broadly. View "Pugin v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sarah Farum filed a frivolous asylum application. An immigration judge determined the application rendered her permanently ineligible for immigration benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Farnum did not challenge the frivolousness finding made by the immigration judge, nor did she challenge she had proper notice of the consequences of filing a false application. She instead challenged the timing of when the frivolous-asylum bar was effective. In her view, the frivolous-application bar outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) could not be invoked in the same proceeding as a frivolousness finding was made, thus allowing an immigration court to consider other potential claims that might support a finding that the Attorney General should withhold her deportation. To this, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed: "Once an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals makes the required frivolousness finding, the statutory bar is effective." View "Farnum v. Garland" on Justia Law