Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

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

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the judgment of the immigration judge (IJ) rejecting Petitioner's application for deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA's denial of CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence.After Petitioner, a Haitian national, pleaded guilty in a Massachusetts state court with carrying a firearm without a license the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. An IJ denied Petitioner's application for deferral of removal under the CAT, and the BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review, holding (1) the agency's finding that generalized danger and violence endemic in Haitian society will pose no particularized threat to Petitioner was supported by substantial evidence; (2) judicial venue was proper in the First Circuit; and (3) substantial evidence supported the agency's denial of CAT protection. View "Bazile v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner Dennis Arostegui-Maldonado, a citizen of Costa Rica and El Salvador, was removed from the United States in 2008. In 2021, he reentered. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) reinstated his removal order. Arostegui-Maldonado told an asylum officer that he feared persecution or torture in Costa Rica and El Salvador. The officer referred his case to an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for “withholding-only proceedings” to decide whether to forbid his removal to those countries. The IJ denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Arostegui-Maldonado challenged the agency’s rulings on the merits, arguing: (1) the IJ misapplied the “under color of law” element to his Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim; (2) the BIA ignored his CAT claim; (3) the IJ failed to fully develop the record; and (4) the IJ and the BIA violated his due process rights. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Arostegui-Maldonado that the IJ misapplied “under color of law” to his CAT claim, and granted the petition on that ground. The Court otherwise denied the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland" on Justia Law

During removal proceedings, Petitioner wrote to the Board of Immigration Appeals asking to withdraw his appeal of an immigration judge’s decision and to be deported. The Board granted his withdrawal request. He now asserts that the federal laws governing derivative citizenship are unconstitutional and seeks a declaration that he is a U.S. citizen as a judicial remedy.   The Eleventh Circuit denied his appeal. The court concluded that although it has jurisdiction to determine whether the Board erroneously withdrew Petitioner’s appeal, he does not argue the Board did. Further, the court explained that Petitioner also forfeited judicial review of his claims by withdrawing his appeal and asking to be deported. The court explained that Petitioner also moved to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on the ground that there are “genuine issue[s] of material fact” about his claim that former 8 U.S.C. Section 1432(a) unconstitutionally discriminates based on gender and race. However, the court reasoned that because it concluded that Petitioner forfeited any right to judicial review of that claim, there is no genuine issue of material fact that requires the court to transfer this case to the district court. View "Franco P. Clement v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States in 2001. He remained in the country until 2008 when he was ordered removed. In 2015, Petitioner was charged with federal bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. In 2016, he was convicted of those charges after pleading guilty and sentenced to 44 months in prison. Based on Petitioner’s convictions, in August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) began removal proceedings against Petitioner. And also, because of those convictions, in September 2019, DHS moved to terminate his asylum status. Petitioner conceded he was removable based on the bank fraud and identity theft proceedings but requested the IJ waive those grounds for his removal. Petitioner also applied to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. And he separately sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for a waiver. Petitioner asked the Fourth Circuit to grant his petition for review and vacate the BIA’s decision determining that the termination of his asylum status renders him ineligible to seek an adjustment of status to a lawful permanent resident under Section 1159(b).   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that Section 1159(b) unambiguously precludes an alien whose asylum status has been terminated from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. On that basis, Petitioner’s argument fails at step one of the Chevron test. Since Petitioner’s asylum status had been terminated at the time he sought to adjust to lawful permanent resident status, he was not eligible for that adjustment. View "Tiger Cela v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a petition to have her husband classified as her immediate relative so that he would be eligible to adjust his immigration status. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security approved the petition but later revoked that approval because Plaintiff’s husband had entered a previous marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws. Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Secretary’s marriage-fraud determination. The district court dismissed her complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because it determined that Plaintiff’s complaint challenged a discretionary decision.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of the Secretary and Director. The court explained that Plaintiff asserted that the Secretary reached the wrong outcome when he determined that there was good and sufficient cause to revoke the approval of her petition. The court wrote that the agency has articulated a standard to guide its evaluation of whether good and sufficient cause exists. But the court explained it cannot review Plaintiff’s complaint that the Secretary reached the wrong conclusion in her case. The sole statutory predicate for revocation is that the Secretary deem that there is good and sufficient cause. That the Secretary has, in his discretion, created additional standards to explain what constitutes good and sufficient cause and linked that determination in Plaintiff’s case to the marriage-fraud provision does not alter the bar on judicial review of the Secretary’s discretionary decision. View "Amina Bouarfa v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the BIA, the panel held that the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the BIA comports with Article II of the Constitution. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that the Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them at will. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) June 17, 2022, decision denying their motion for reconsideration of the Board’s July 29, 2021 decision. In the July 29, 2021 decision, the Board granted the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) motion to reinstate Petitioners’ removal proceedings and reissued the Board’s prior October 15, 2013 decision, which dismissed Petitioners’ appeal of a decision denying their applications for asylum and related protection.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it discerned no abuse of discretion. The court explained that the Board offered a rational explanation for rejecting Petitioners’ request for clarification. The Board’s July 29, 2021 decision—by Petitioners’ own acknowledgment—reissued the October 15, 2013 decision. This decision, in turn, permitted voluntary departure consistent with the IJ’s February 9, 2012 decision. Both the Board’s October 15, 2013 decision and the IJ’s February 9, 2012 decision warned Petitioners of the consequences of filing a motion for reconsideration: automatic termination of voluntary departure and immediate effect of the alternative order of removal. Here, Petitioners chose to move for reconsideration. Their action automatically terminated the voluntary departure that the October 15, 2013 decision authorized. View "Tsatsral Bekhbat v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

After DHS reinstated prior removal orders and initiated another removal proceeding, Mejia sought withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He claimed that if returned to Mexico, he would face violence from the criminal gang, Union of Tepito. When Mejia initially refused to transport drugs for Tepito, the gang beat him and mocked his religion; police were nearby and ignored the beating but Mejia could not say whether they saw it. Mejia capitulated but, after a few drug deliveries, he relocated to a different area on the outskirts of Mexico City. The gang found him, hit his head with a gun, and threatened to kill him. Mejia fled to the U.S. He testified that he believed he could not relocate within Mexico because he did not know if other gangs were affiliated with Tepito and feared people would discriminate against his Mexico City accent.The IJ found Mejia credible but denied relief, finding that the gang’s prior attacks did not qualify as persecution or torture; Mejia failed to demonstrate future persecution would be likely, that his persecution was tied to membership in a qualifying social group, or that Mexican officials would be unwilling or unable to protect him. The IJ decided that Mejia could avoid the gang by relocating within Mexico. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Mejia’s counsel had not disputed the relocation finding. View "Mejia v. Garland" on Justia Law