Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner petitioned for a review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge found that Petitioner was not credible due to her inconsistent and evasive testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.   The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. The court explained that the record shows that the immigration judge considered Petitioner’s testimony and evidence, pointed to several material inconsistencies and instances of evasive or untruthful testimony, and determined that Petitioner’s overall testimony lacked credibility. These findings find substantial support in the record. Thus, Petitioner has not met her burden to establish eligibility for asylum. And, because the burdens for securing withholding of removal or protection under the CAT are more stringent, those claims fail as well. View "Meixiang Cui v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, alleging that he had entered the United States without inspection at a time and place unknown to the government. Petitioner conceded that he was removable but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(b) and adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255. Petitioner petitioned for review of a final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals. After Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, the Board upheld an immigration judge’s denial of those applications and a request for a continuance, and it denied a motion to remand. Petitioner challenged the denial of the continuance and the motion to remand.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition. The panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the claim because—with an exception not at issue here— Congress forbade judicial review of “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under” the provisions governing cancellation and adjustment. The panel noted that, under Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592 (9th Cir. 2006), a court may review the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings for cancellation in certain circumstances, including if the new evidence submitted addresses a hardship ground so distinct from that considered previously as to make the motion a request for new relief. The panel concluded that it need not decide whether that holding survives Patel, explaining that, even on its own terms, Fernandez does not help Petitioner because he did not present a request for new relief within the meaning of Fernandez. View "JESUS FIGUEROA OCHOA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought a review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal, ordering her removed, and denying her application for cancellation of removal. The BIA ordered that she be removed under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). Specifically, the BIA and Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that a conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated (“ACA”) Section 5-60-101 is categorically a CIMT.   The Second Circuit reversed. The court concluded that a conviction under ACA Section 5- 60-101 is not categorically a CIMT because the statute criminalizes conduct that is not “inherently base, vile, or depraved.” The court explained that the BIA did not conduct an elements-based categorical inquiry. Instead, it applied an inapposite “realistic probability” test. That test “operates as a backstop when a statute has indeterminate reach, and where minimum conduct analysis invites improbable hypotheticals.” It applies only when there is a match between the state statute and federal standard, but a petitioner posits imaginative scenarios in which the state statute would be violated in such a way that does not meet the requirements of a CIMT. View "Giron-Molina v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that government agents searched his cell phone at the border without a warrant on at least five occasions and that agents copied data from his cell phone at least once. Plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the respective heads of each entity in their official capacity (collectively, the government), challenging the searches, as well as ICE and CBP policies regarding border searches of electronic devices. In the district court, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking, among other relief, a preliminary injunction preventing the government from searching his cell phone at the border without a warrant. The district court denied the preliminary injunction.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial threat he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The court reasoned that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the ICE and CBP policies authorize warrantless searches. Further, the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint are evidence of a pattern of warrantless searches of Plaintiff’s cell phone. However, Plaintiff has no additional evidence to establish that he will be stopped by border agents in the future and that the agents will search his cell phone without a warrant. View "Anibowei v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Texas and Missouri filed suit seeking to compel DHS to employ the $2.75 billion Congress allocated “for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border” before those funds expire. The district court dismissed Texas for “claim splitting,” held that Missouri did not have standing to sue, and denied the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The states appealed.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to "expeditiously consider the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction." The court explained Texas should not have been dismissed for claim splitting because Texas’s Article III standing confers federal jurisdiction. In terms of causation, Texas needs only to have alleged facts showing the Federal Defendants’ conduct is a cause-in-fact of the injury that the State asserts. Here, Texas claimed that border barriers (i) reduce illegal entries in areas where constructed, and (ii) increase the rate at which illegal aliens are detected and apprehended.However, the court declined to order the states' requested remedy, instead remanding the case to the district court. View "State of Missouri v. Biden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Côte d’Ivoire and citizen of Burkina Faso was admitted to the United States in 2016 with an F-1 student visa. Petitioner soon withdrew from the university, terminating his student visa. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on his fears of harm from his political opinions and affiliation with the Congress for Democracy and Progress. Three years later, he updated his affidavit with two additional bases for fear of future persecution: his Christian faith and Fulani ethnicity. Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protections. Petitioner argued that the BIA abused its discretion by finding no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.   The Eighth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that because the IJ identified specific, cogent reasons to disbelieve Petitioner’s testimony, sufficient evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum or withholding of removal. Petitioner argued that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for his asylum and withholding-of-removal applications should not foreclose his application for CAT protections. Because Petitioner did not raise these arguments before the BIA, they are unexhausted, and the Eighth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to consider them. View "Wendkouni Zongo v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's claim that he had a reasonable fear of persecution if repatriated to his native Ghana on account of his membership in a particular social group, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and immigration judge (IJ) correctly rejected Petitioner's claim.Petitioner conceded his removability but cross-applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, testifying that, if returned to Ghana, he would be tortured and killed because his family never surrendered formal title to land taken from them by a local chieftain. The IJ ordered Petitioner removed to Ghana, and the BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review, holding that the IJ and BIA did not err in finding that the interpersonal conflict between Petitioner's family and the chieftain was unconnected to a statutorily-protected ground for relief. View "Odei v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He challenged the BIA decision on grounds that: (1) it was ultra vires because the order was signed by a temporary BIA member whose term had expired; (2) the BIA erred in finding that Petitioner lacked good moral character; and (3) the BIA erred in affirming the denial of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed his petition in part and denied it in part. Petitioner contended that the two temporary BIA members who ruled in his case acted ultra vires because their terms had “terminated by automatic operation of law” on October 31, 2020, nearly six months before they ruled in his case. His argument hinges on whether the Attorney General properly delegated his renewal authority to the Director through regulation. But his argument collapses against the BIA members’ reappointment paperwork because that documentation substantiates the Government’s assertion that the temporary BIA members were reappointed by the Attorney General, not the Director.   Petitioner also contended that the BIA improperly relied on a 2019 decision by the then-Acting Attorney General (AAG) because it was issued without legal authority due to alleged defects in the AAG’s appointment. The court did not consider merits because Petitioner failed to brief the issue adequately. View "Medina Carreon v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a 32-year-old native and citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States in 2006 and overstayed his visitor visa. On December 20, 2017, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officers arrested Petitioner pursuant to a warrant issued by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). In removal proceedings before the IJ, Petitioner argued that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings and the officers violated agency regulations and his fundamental rights during his arrest and interrogation.   The Second Circuit denied the petition. The court agreed that the agency had jurisdiction and that termination of the removal proceeding was not warranted. The court explained under Rajah termination may be warranted for pre-hearing regulatory violations in cases involving "prejudice that may have affected the outcome of the proceeding, conscience-shocking conduct, or a deprivation of fundamental rights." As Petitioner has failed to show that he satisfies any of the three requirements for termination, he is not entitled to termination of his removal proceedings, with or without prejudice to renewal. Accordingly, the court found that the immigration court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to terminate. View "Medley v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security charged Petitioner with removability for two counts of being an aggravated felon and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of being admitted to the United States. Petitioner conceded her removability, making her inadmissible to the United States and subject to deportation. Seeking relief from removal, Petitioner applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. To qualify for the waiver, Petitioner needed to demonstrate statutory eligibility and that the equities warranted a favorable exercise of discretion. The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application. Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her waiver of inadmissibility.   The Eighth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part. The court explained that although the BIA did not include hardship to Petitioner’s relatives when it listed Petitioner’s positive equities, it still considered hardship in its decision. The BIA recognized that Petitioner’s removal would “likely result in a considerable level of hardship to herself, her spouse, and her children.” Accordingly, the court denied Petitioner’s petition on this ground. Further, Petitioner challenged the BIA’s weighing of equities, specifically how it weighed her crimes. The court wrote that this is not a reviewable question of law. It is a challenge to “the discretionary conclusion of not meriting a favorable exercise of discretion,” which the court does not have jurisdiction to review. View "Aisha King v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law