Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner alleged that the Angolan government identified her as a supporter of the independence movement after she attended a church-organized, pro-independence rally in 2016. Soon thereafter, three armed men in government uniforms broke into her home and, in front of her children, beat and raped her, leading to a three-day hospital stay. Petitioner claimed, in her asylum application and in sworn testimony before an IJ, that she was never formally a member of FLEC, but rather has only supported independence through peaceful protest and organizing, which is a family tradition of sorts for many Cabindans. However, the IJ interpreted unsworn, nonverbatim statements from Petitioner’s credible fear interview (CFI) as indicating that Petitioner was a member of FLEC. The BIA found this adverse credibility finding reasonable, and affirmed.   The primary issue before the Fifth Circuit was whether the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The Fifth Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, vacated the decisions of the BIA and IJ denying Petitioner’s application for asylum and CAT relief, and remanded. The court explained that the BIA and IJ relied heavily on an unsupported conclusion that Petitioner is not a credible witness. At the same time, there appears to be little dispute that, if Petitioner’s claims are true, she would be entitled to asylum under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(A). As such, the court concluded that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by specific and cogent reasons derived from the record. View "Ndudzi v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner along with his mother, little sister, and two young cousins—crawled under a border fence that separated Mexico from Arizona. The United States Border Patrol agents soon apprehended them walking north along a highway and subsequently handed Petitioner a notice to appear. The notice ordered him to appear for removal proceedings before the Phoenix Immigration Court at a date and time “to be set.”   The Atlanta Immigration Court sent that notice to Petitioner at the most recent address they had on file for him—his aunt’s home in Rock Springs. It was returned, undelivered, to the immigration court. He remained in the United States for nearly a decade and a half before reappearing in the immigration system in July 2019, when he moved to reopen his removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that judgment and Petitioner argued that under Pereira he could not be removed.   The Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition. The court explained an alien is eligible for a second chance at removal proceedings if he never received the notice telling him to attend the hearing he missed. But Petitioner cannot benefit from dodging a hearing or failing to keep the government informed of his current address. Petitioner did not tell the government when he moved, and he let his removal proceedings lie dormant for nearly fifteen years. A flaw in the initial notice handed to him does not entitle him, years later, to another chance at avoiding removal. View "Samuel Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner was ordered excluded in 1996 and then unlawfully re-entered the United States. In 2007, DHS served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court but later moved to dismiss the NTA as improvidently issued. DHS sought dismissal because it could reinstate Petitioner’s 1996 removal order through the more streamlined reinstatement process. The immigration judge denied DHS’s motions and granted Petitioner’s cancellation of removal, but the BIA granted DHS’s motion to dismiss and terminated removal proceedings. DHS later issued an order reinstating Petitioner’s 1996 order, and he filed a petition for review but did not challenge the reinstatement decision itself. Instead, he challenged the BIA’s earlier decision terminating his removal proceedings.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petitioner for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that an immigration petitioner who is subject to a reinstated order of removal may not challenge an earlier decision terminating separate removal proceedings. Because Petitioner’s petition challenged only the BIA’s decision terminating his removal proceedings, which did not result in a final removal order, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition.   The court relied on Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2009), and Galindo-Romero v. Holder, 640 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2011), where petitioners sought review of BIA decisions terminating removal proceedings, and this court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a) limits the court’s jurisdiction to review of “final orders of removal,” and no such orders existed in those cases. View "MIGUEL LOPEZ LUVIAN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, became a lawful permanent resident in 1997. Subsequently, he was convicted of four separate crimes in Washington state, including the delivery of a controlled substance. At the time, this offense was an "aggravated felony." and therefore, Petitioner became removable. Petitioner was removed; however, he subsequently re-entered the United States. In 2016, the government detained Petitioner and reinstated his previous removal order.In January 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for review of the reinstatement order, which was ultimately denied. While it was still pending, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen with the immigration judge. The immigration judge denied the motion, Petitioner unsuccessfully filed an administrative appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then appealed to the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, finding that 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1231(a)(5), generally bars reopening reinstated orders of removal and that Petitioner did not establish a "gross miscarriage of justice." The Ninth Circuit also held that the agency lacked authority to sua sponte reopen such reinstated removal orders. View "RICARDO BRAVO-BRAVO V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

After a jury convicted Jose Hernandez-Calvillo and Mauro Papalotzi (collectively, Appellees) of conspiring to encourage or induce a noncitizen to reside in the United States, they challenged the statute as overbroad under the First Amendment and successfully moved to dismiss the indictment on that basis. The government appealed. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed: 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)'s plain language targets protected speech, and the government’s proposed limiting construction found support in the statute’s text or surrounding context. "And when properly construed, the statute criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, creating a real danger that the statute will chill First Amendment expression." The Court thus held the statute was substantially overbroad, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the indictment. View "United States v. Hernandez-Calvillo" on Justia Law

The United States appealed from the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging Defendant with illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. According to the district court, defects in the notice to appear (“NTA”)—which initiated the immigration proceedings against Defendant resulting in his eventual removal from the United States— deprived the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction to effect the removal in the first place, rendering the entire immigration proceeding “void ab initio.”   The Ninth Circuit held, consistent with precedent and that of every other circuit to consider this issue, that the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus the defendant’s removal was not “void ab initio,” as the district court determined.   The court explained that hat 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.14(a)—a regulation by which the Attorney General purported to condition the “jurisdiction” of immigration courts upon the filing of a charging document, including NTAs—is a claim-processing rule not implicating the court’s adjudicatory authority. The en banc court read Section 1003.14(a)’s reference to “jurisdiction” in a purely colloquial sense. The en banc court wrote that although the statutory definition of an NTA requires the date and time of the removal hearing, 8 U.S.C. Section 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), this provision chiefly concerns the notice the government must provide noncitizens regarding their removal proceedings, not the authority of immigration courts to conduct those proceedings. View "USA V. JUAN BASTIDE-HERNANDEZ" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States through Texas on May 10, 2005. He was detained the next day, but subsequently released on his own recognizance. Petitioner then moved to Connecticut without notifying the court or providing a new address. The court proceeded in absentia and ultimately ordered Petitioner to be removed. Fourteen years later, Petitioner sought to reopen the proceedings and rescind the in absentia order, claiming he did not receive adequate notice of the removal proceedings.The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denied relief, and Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit denied the Petitioner's petition for review. The court noted that Petitioner did not provide any address, so he may not reopen proceedings on the ground that the date and time of his removal proceeding were not included in his notice to appear. The court also held that the BIA did not err in failing to consider Petitioner's own affidavit because the BIA adequately considered all the evidence presented. View "Gudiel-Villatoro v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner was deported in 1991 but illegally reentered the next week. In 2001, he applied for adjustment, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied that application in 2019, and Rivera Vega’s prior removal order was reinstated. An asylum officer then determined that Rivera Vega lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if returned to Mexico, and an IJ affirmed.Denying Petitioner’s petition for review, the Ninth Circuit held that: 1) the permanent inadmissibility bar of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) applied retroactively to Petitioner such that he was ineligible for adjustment of status; 2) his prior removal order was properly reinstated; 3) his statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings was not violated, and 4) the IJ properly rejected his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).   Specifically, the court held that the permanent inadmissibility bar applies retroactively to unlawful reentries made before IIRIRA’s effective date—provided the alien failed to apply for adjustment before that date— because doing so does not impose a new legal consequence based on past conduct. First, the court explained that Petitioner did not have a vested right in adjustment relief. Second, IIRIRA imposed a new legal consequence on Petitioner not for his pre-IIRIRA illegal reentry but because of his illegal presence after IIRIRA. Lastly, given IIRIRA’s aims of toeing a harder line on immigration and limiting the availability of discretionary relief, it would be anomalous for Petitioner to obtain a perpetual right to seek relief at his own convenience. View "JORGE RIVERA VEGA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) The BIA affirmed based upon the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review because three out of four inconsistencies relied upon by the BIA are not supported by the record. The court remanded on an open record for the BIA to determine in the first instance whether the remaining inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination.   The court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s reliance upon insufficient corroborating evidence as a basis for finding Petitioner not credible because the IJ categorically ignored documents that were consistent with Petitioner’s testimony. The court explained that by ignoring such evidence, the IJ did not consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making the adverse credibility determination.   The court held that the BIA further erred by misinterpreting the IJ’s holding regarding corroborating evidence as relying on 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), and by erroneously characterizing the IJ’s holding as concluding that Petitioner did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to sustain his burden of proof independent of his own non-credible testimony when the IJ actually relied upon the lack of documentation as one factor supporting its adverse credibility determination under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The court did not reach the BIA’s holding concerning Petitioner’s eligibility for protection under CAT. View "HAYK BARSEGHYAN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Brito unlawfully entered the U.S. in or before 2013. After DHS ordered him removed, Brito illegally reentered before 2019. DHS issued a second notice of removal, Brito applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he would be subject to persecution and torture if removed to Mexico. Brito testified that he had fled Mexico because cartel members confronted and abducted him at gunpoint. His home was ransacked by the cartel. Brito’s expert testified that the cartel would seek him out to exact revenge for his escape and noted the Mexican government’s history of acquiescing to or even colluding with the cartel.The IJ granted Brito deferral of removal under CAT. The BIA vacated that decision and ordered Brito removed to Mexico, finding no factual support for the finding that the cartel sought him out specifically or was even aware of his identity. The BIA characterized Brito’s evidence as largely describing “the general inadequacies and corruption in the Mexican government.” The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. The BIA applied the correct standard and was not prohibited from accepting an untimely brief from DHS. View "Brito v. Garland" on Justia Law