Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel held that noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in a single document specifying the time and date of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings, otherwise any in absentia removal order directed at the noncitizen is subject to rescission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). View "VARINDER SINGH V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel held that noncitizens must receive a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in a single document specifying the time and date of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings, otherwise any in absentia removal order directed at the noncitizen is subject to rescission pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). View "RAUL MENDEZ-COLIN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for a review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to uphold the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge, as authorized by Congress, conducted the removal proceeding via video teleconference.   The Second Circuit concluded that the Fifth Circuit is the proper venue for his petition for review because jurisdiction vested in Louisiana and there was no change of venue after removal proceedings commenced. Still, in light of Petitioner’s understandable confusion about the proper venue for his petition, the period of time in which the petition has been pending before this Court, and the fact that his counsel is based in New York, the court denied the government’s motion to transfer. Thus, the court proceeded to consider Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal, which the court denied due to Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate either a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim or that he will be irreparably injured absent a stay. View "Sarr v. Garland" on Justia Law

Baghdad, a Moroccan citizen, has lived in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident for two decades. In 2018, he and two accomplices ran out of a Pennsylvania store with three drills (worth about $1000) and sold them at a pawn shop. He pleaded guilty to retail theft and faced nearly two years’ incarceration. The government argued that his conviction was for an aggravated felony, making him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The term “aggravated felony” includes theft convictions that result in prison sentences of at least one year. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that the retail theft conviction constituted an aggravated felonyThe Third Circuit denied Baghdad’s petition for review, applying the categorical approach. Baghdad was convicted of a crime that shares all three elements with generic theft and his sentence was for more than one year. While Pennsylvania juries may infer that a defendant who concealed merchandise intended to steal it, that inference is permissive, not mandatory. It depends on facts from which the jury could infer intent to steal beyond a reasonable doubt and it does not shift the burden of proof. Baghdad’s conviction makes him removable. View "Baghdad v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In 2012 the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Eight states and the Governors of two states, led by Texas, have challenged DACA’s validity. In ruling on competing motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the DACA Memorandum violates procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court vacated the DACA Memorandum and remanded to DHS for further consideration but temporarily stayed that vacatur as it applies to current DACA recipients. The district court further ruled that DHS may continue to accept new and renewal DACA applications but enjoined DHS from approving any new DACA applications.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in part but remanded to the district court rather than DHS in light of a final rule promulgated by DHS in August 2022. The court explained that it affirmed the district court’s judgment with regard to the procedural and substantive provisions of the DACA memorandum.   There is evidence that if DACA were no longer in effect, at least some recipients would leave, and their departure would reduce the State’s Medicaid, social services and education costs for those individuals and their families who depart with them. Especially with the benefit of special solicitude, Texas has established that rescinding DACA would redress its harm. Accordingly, Texas has demonstrated standing based on its direct injury. Further, the court held that because DACA did not undergo notice and comment, it violates the procedural requirements of the APA. View "State of Texas v. USA" on Justia Law

Petitioner a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner claimed the BIA failed to consider country conditions evidence when separately analyzing his CAT claim.
The Fifth Circuit agreed with Petitioner and granted the petition for review and remanded for further consideration of the CAT claim. The court concluded that the BIA’s statement in this case “raises too great a concern that the BIA did not adequately consider the evidence before it.” Petitioner plainly pointed to other evidence to support his CAT claim, i.e. the country conditions evidence determination is not necessarily dispositive of a CAT claim. Because the BIA incorrectly found no record evidence about relevant country conditions, Petitioner did not receive “meaningful consideration of the relevant substantial evidence supporting” his claims. View "Ndifon v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitions for review of the dismissal of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. She claimed abuse by a former boyfriend and gang member, but the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied her application because she did not find Petitioner credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed the IJ’s credibility finding and also concluded Petitioner did not raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) before the IJ.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court explained that the IJ acted squarely within her authority in finding Petitioner’s account not credible and denying her claims accordingly. Because nothing in the record supports a conclusion “that no reasonable factfinder could disbelieve” Petitioner, the court wrote that it cannot disturb the IJ’s credibility determination on appeal. Next, the court wrote that Petitioner twice chose, through counsel, not to check boxes expressly asking whether she sought CAT relief. By not checking that box, Petitioner plainly conveyed she did not “want to apply for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture.” Accordingly, the BIA did not err in concluding Petitioner failed to raise a CAT claim. View "Cordero-Chavez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the challenged OPT Rule pursuant to the Executive’s longstanding authority under the INA to set the “time” and “conditions” of nonimmigrants’ stay in the United States. Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (Washtech) argues that the statutory definition of the F-1 visa class precludes the Secretary from exercising the time-and-conditions authority to allow F-1 students to remain for school-recommended practical training after they complete their coursework. The district court sustained the OPT Rule’s authorization of a limited period of post-coursework Optional Practical Training if recommended and overseen by the school and approved by DHS, for qualifying students on F-1 visas.   The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court explained that Washtech is right that section 1324a(h)(3) is not the source of the relevant regulatory authority; it just defines what it means for an alien to be “unauthorized” for employment. But that was never the government’s point. What matters is that section 1324a(h)(3) expressly acknowledges that employment authorization need not be specifically conferred by statute; it can also be granted by regulation, as it has been in rules promulgated pursuant to DHS’s statutory authority to set the “conditions” of nonimmigrants’ admission to the United States. The OPT Rule’s authorization for F-1 students to work in jobs that provide practical training related to their course of study is just such a rule. Washtech’s claim that the OPT Rule conflicts with the congressional prohibition against unauthorized aliens’ employment therefore fails. View "WA Alliance of Tech. Workers v. DHS" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied the petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that Petitioner had not shown prejudice, and the BIA committed no error of law in that ruling.Petitioner, a native of Haiti, was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C) based on a firearm conviction. Petitioner filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and cancellation of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the BIA upheld the IJ's determination. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner was deserving of cancellation of removal. View "Dorce v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision that she is ineligible to have her removal order canceled. The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition. The court explained that Petitioner is ineligible for any relief because her removal order was reinstated after she illegally reentered the country following a prior removal.   The court concluded that the BIA correctly determined that Petitioner is ineligible to be considered for cancelation of removal. She has never challenged the order reinstating her removal. The reinstatement statute prevents her from getting any immigration “relief.” And cancelation of removal is a form of relief. Accordingly, the court denied her petition. View "Ruiz-Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law