Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner entered the United States without inspection. In 1993, he was served an OSC, the charging document that initiated immigration proceedings prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Petitioner’s OSC did not list the time and place of his proceedings. Petitioner sought suspension of deportation, a form of relief available prior to IIRIRA. IIRIRA provided that continuous physical presence is deemed to end when the applicant is served with a notice to appear (“NTA”). Under IIRIRA’s transitional rules, which apply to individuals like Petitioner, whose proceedings were pending when IIRIRA was enacted, this stop-time rule applies retroactively to proceedings initiated by an OSC.   Accordingly, Petitioner’s continuous physical presence was deemed to end when he was served his OSC—only four years after his arrival, and thus short of the required seven years. Petitioner contended that the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), instructs that his OSC was statutorily defective and that the stop-time rule was therefore inapplicable.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision, the panel held that: 1) an OSC that fails to disclose the time and place of an immigrant’s deportation proceedings is sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule in a transitional rules case; 2) Petitioner’s OSC triggered the stop-time rule, making him ineligible for suspension of deportation; and 3) substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. View "WINSTON GUTIERREZ-ALM V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. In his petition, Petitioner argued that the IJ erred as a matter of law in denying his application for cancellation of removal based on the IJ’s conclusion that the harm Petitioner’s children will suffer upon his removal is not “exceptional and extremely unusual.”   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that Petitioner’s argument is actually an “argument . . . that the [IJ] erred in failing to afford what he believes is sufficient weight to Petitioner’s step-son’s emotional hardship in rendering the hardship determination.” The court explained that a petitioner’s argument “that the [Board] applied the incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors” is actually a challenge to the Board’s discretionary determination that the court lacks jurisdiction to review. View "Artemio Garcia-Pascual v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

In a case in which federal civil immigration detainees— who are held in the Northeast ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”), a private detention center in Tacoma, Washington, operated by GEO Group—challenge GEO’s practice of paying them less than the State’s minimum wage to work at the detention center, the Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the Washington Supreme Court:1) In the circumstances of this case, are the detained workers at NWIPC employees within the meaning of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”)? 2) If the answer to the first question is yes, does the MWA apply to work performed in comparable circumstances by civil detainees confined in a private detention facility operating under a contract with the State? 3) If the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no, and assuming that the damage award to the detained workers is sustained, is that damage award an adequate legal remedy that would foreclose equitable relief to the State in the form of an unjust enrichment award? View "UGOCHUKWU NWAUZOR, ET AL V. THE GEO GROUP, INC." on Justia Law

Petitioner is a native citizen of Mexico who received lawful permanent resident status in the United States in 2003. In 2014, Petitioner was convicted by way of a guilty plea of an Aggravated Robbery in Texas. Petitioner was then deemed removable by an Immigration Judge ("IJ"). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed, finding that Petitioner had been convicted of an "aggravated felony."The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), an “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” Section 1101(a)(43) of title 8 provides a list of offenses that qualify as aggravated felonies, which includes felony theft crimes, felony crimes of violence and attempts to commit these offenses. Petitioner argued that “since the Texas definition of a robbery encompasses an attempt to commit theft, it cannot categorically be defined as a theft offense, as an actual taking or exercise of control over the property of another is not needed for purposes of a conviction.However, the court held that, for Petitioner's purposes, it didn't matter if he was convicted of attempted theft or aggravated theft. The court explained that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum because his conviction qualifies as a non-political felony crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a). View "Rodriguez Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without authorization in 2000. In 2017, Petitioner accidentally hit a pedestrian with her car and then fled the scene. She entered a guilty plea to Texas Transportation Code Sec. 550.021 and was sentenced to five years’ deferred adjudication.While on deferred adjudication, the Department of Homeland Security arrested Petitioner and charged her with being present without admission or parole under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In 2020, Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal with the immigration court; she also requested voluntary departure. The Immigration Judge denied her application, finding her 2017 conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude, rendering her ineligible for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed and denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider.In reviewing Petitioner's claim, the BIA applied outdated precedent. Under controlling precedent, outlined in Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), the proper focus is on the minimum conduct prohibited by the statute, not on the Petitioner's particular actions. Here, The minimum conduct that can trigger liability is the failure to remain at the scene of the accident and provide one’s name and other information. However, this question was not addressed by the BIA. Thus, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded to determine whether the failure to share information under Sec. 550.021(a)(4) is a CIMT. View "Zamaro-Silvero v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Petitioner admitted the factual allegations and conceded the charge of removability. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application for all claims. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, and he only preserved his cancellation of removal claim.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review either decision. The court explained that Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement applies to claims alleging defects in the BIA proceedings that the BIA “never had a chance to consider” because they arise “only as a consequence of the Board’s error.” Moreover, “when a petitioner seeks to raise a claim not presented to the BIA and the claim is one that the BIA has adequate mechanisms to address and remedy, the petitioner must raise the issue in a motion to reopen prior to resorting to review by the courts.” Here, Petitioner failed to meet these requirements. He never presented his ultra vires claim to the BIA, even though he could have raised it in his motion to reconsider. Moreover, Petitioner seeks the exact relief the BIA could’ve awarded him on reconsideration—namely, a new decision by a board member serving an unexpired term. View "Ayala Chapa v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2000, Britkovyy, a Ukrainian citizen, entered the U.S. through Mexico and twice stated that he was born in the U.S. The following day, Britkovyy—through an interpreter—explained that he had misunderstood the question and had not claimed citizenship. Britkovyy was paroled (allowed to enter but not “admitted”) and charged as inadmissible for falsely representing himself as a citizen. Britkovyy did not appear; an IJ ordered him removed in absentia. Britkovyy never left the country and married a U.S. citizen. In 2007, Britkovyy’s outstanding immigration was discovered warrant during a traffic stop. His wife petitioned for family-based permanent residency for Britkovyy. He applied to adjust his immigration status with both the immigration court (in re-opened removal proceedings) and with USCIS. The immigration court concluded it lacked jurisdiction; USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction to adjust the status of an “arriving alien,” and Britkovyy was an arriving alien because he was paroled, not admitted. USCIS denied Britkovyy’s application under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), 1255(a). His removal proceedings remain pending.The immigration statutes do not provide for judicial review of the USCIS denial, so Britkovyy filed suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). While his appeal from the dismissal of his suit was pending, the Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips federal courts of jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under section 1255, which governs adjustment of status. The Seventh Circuit concluded it lacked jurisdiction. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction to review USCIS’s denial of an adjustment-of-status application. This immigration-specific jurisdiction-stripping statute precludes an APA challenge. View "Britkovyy v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of felonious assault on a peace officer under section 2903.13(A) of the Ohio Revised Code and misdemeanor resisting arrest. While Defendant was in prison, he was served with a “Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order.” The notice alleged that Defendant was a Mexican citizen in the country illegally who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was thus removable. The notice alleged that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under the INA. Defendant was once again arrested and charged with illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his section 2903.13(A) assault conviction was not an aggravated felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel disagreed with Defendant’s contention that knowledge is not sufficient for “attempted use” because common law attempt requires specific intent. Defendant also argued that his prior offense is not a crime of violence because section 2903.13(A) does not require “violent” physical force but can be violated by offensive or de minimis contact. The panel explained that the text of section 2903.13(A) only criminalizes force capable of causing physical pain or injury and held that the type of conduct to which section 2903.13(A) has been applied by Ohio courts is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The panel, therefore, concluded that section 2903.13(a) is a crime of violence under Section 16(a), it thus qualifies as an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(F), and Defendant’s removal order was not fundamentally unfair. View "USA V. JACINTO ALVAREZ" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Although the Board entertained the government’s challenge to a portion of the immigration judge’s decision in Petitioner’s case, it declined to consider Petitioner’s challenges to that decision because Petitioner had not filed a cross-appeal. Petitioner argued that the Board erred when it concluded that he was required to file a separate cross-appeal to challenge the immigration judge’s alternative order on the merits of his claims.The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel observed that section 1003.3 does not expressly address cross-appeals. However, the panel wrote that the cross-appeal rule is an “unwritten but longstanding rule” under which “an appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party.” The panel explained that the Supreme Court has described this rule as “firmly entrenched,” and it has noted that “in more than two centuries of repeatedly endorsing the cross-appeal requirement, not a single one of our holdings has ever recognized an exception to the rule.” The panel noted that it was not suggesting that the Board was required to follow the traditional rule governing cross-appeals. Rather, the Board has authority to prescribe its own rules of procedure so long as the Board acts within the broad limits imposed by the Due Process Clause. The panel concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s arguments for a waiver of the cross-appeal rule because he failed to exhaust that claim before the Board. View "JORGE LOPEZ HERNANDEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Cuban immigrant, sought immigration relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) as well as through and application for asylum, and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The Immigration Judge denied the petitions, based on two inconsistencies with Petitioner's testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of the Immigration Judge's denial of Petitioner's immigration application, finding the record lacks substantial evidence that would allow the court to affirm the Immigration Judge's adverse credibility determination. The court noted that the inconsistencies were involved translated statements that more properly seen as were "approximations." Thus, the court determined that the Immigration Judge committed clear error in making an adverse credibility determination. View "Ignacio Balaez Serra v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law