Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's judgment declaring invalid the Department of Family and Protective Services Rule 748.7, which governs immigration detention centers, and enjoining the Department from granting licenses under the rule, holding that Plaintiffs had standing to challenge Rule 748.7.Plaintiffs, a nonprofit advocacy group, a day-care operator and several detainee mothers, individually and on behalf of their children, brought this action alleging that the Department lacked authority to adopt Rule 748.7 because it increased the safety risk to the detainees and their children. The trial court declared the rule invalid and enjoined the Department from granting licenses under the rule. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert their claims. View "Grassroots Leadership, Inc. v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services" on Justia Law

Aguirre-Zuniga’s family immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. when he was three years old. He is now raising his own six-year-old daughter, an American citizen in Indiana. He became a lawful permanent resident 15 years ago. His primary language is English, and he has visited Mexico only three times since emigrating. In 2018, he pled guilty to the delivery of methamphetamine in Indiana. DHS concluded that his conviction was an aggravated felony subjecting him to deportation, and the Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed.The Seventh Circuit vacated. The Indiana law prohibiting the delivery of methamphetamine criminalizes more conduct than the corresponding federal law given that Indiana defines “methamphetamine” in a way federal law does not. When a state statute is broader than its federal counterpart, a conviction under that statute cannot trigger a noncitizen’s deportation. View "Aguirre-Zuniga v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner asserted that changed circumstances in his native Jamaica— a spike in violence against members of the People’s National Party—justified his untimely second motion to reopen. Because an Immigration Judge in an earlier proceeding found Petitioner not credible and questioned his actual identity, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) ruled that the new evidence of political violence did not matter because Petitioner may not even be a member of the People’s National Party.   The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part holding that the Board may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding still factually undermines the petitioner’s new argument. The court concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen. The court explained that to prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied on adverse credibility grounds, the respondent must either overcome the prior credibility determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible.   Here, Petitioner did not challenge the adverse credibility finding but instead argued that his new evidence was independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible. The court rejected that argument. The court explained that the IJ had previously found Petitioner’s testimony about his identity not credible, thus undermining his entire claim. Moreover, Petitioner’s claims remained the same throughout his proceedings. The court concluded that the basis of Petitioner's motion to reopen therefore remained intertwined with his credibility problem. View "GARFIELD GREENWOOD V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c), which provides for mandatory detention of noncitizens with certain criminal convictions. After Petitioner filed a habeas petition, the district court ordered that he receive a bond hearing, reasoning that his prolonged mandatory detention violated due process. An IJ denied bond, and the BIA affirmed. The district court asserted jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims but denied habeas relief.   Affirming in part and vacating in part the Ninth Circuit held that: 1) federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination of whether a particular noncitizen poses a danger to the community such that he is not entitled to bond; and 2) the district court correctly denied Petitioner’s claims that the BIA erred or violated due process in denying bond.   The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that Petitioner posed a danger to the community, concluding that dangerousness is a discretionary determination covered by the judicial review bar of 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(e). In concluding that the dangerousness determination is discretionary, the court observed that the only guidance as to what it means to be a “danger to the community” is an agency-created multifactorial analysis with no clear, uniform standard for what crosses the line into dangerousness. As to Petitioner’s remaining claims, the court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review them as constitutional claims or questions of law not covered by Section1226(e), but agreed with the district court that they must be denied. View "JAVIER MARTINEZ V. LOWELL CLARK" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony counts of sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance (count 1) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (count 2). He pled guilty to count 1, offer to sell oxycodone in exchange for 36 months of formal probation with the service of 180 days in county jail. Count 2 was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Defendant’s attorney and the trial court advised him at that time that he would be deported based on his negotiated plea. Seven years later he found himself the subject of deportation proceedings.   The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction. The trial court factually found Defendant's credibility to be “severely lacking,” and his declaration was “deceptively phrased” to mislead the court that counsel had not recommended Defendant meet with an immigration attorney when counsel had, in fact, consulted with Defendant's immigration attorney.   The Second Appellate District affirmed and found that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion. The court explained that the plain and unambiguous language contained in the Felony Disposition Statement states: “If I am not a citizen and am pleading guilty to . . . a controlled substance offense, . . . I will be deported.”  The court explained that even on independent review, Defendant’s contentions fail. At the time of the plea proceeding, Defendant had lived in the United States for approximately seven years with his family. The contemplation of his life in Mexico, contemporaneous with his guilty plea, is persuasive evidence Defendant knew he would be deported. View "P. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted a petition for review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the final order of removal entered against Petitioner pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229-1229a and vacated the BIA's ruling,Petitioner conceded removability but sought relief from removal based on asylum and withholding of removal, as well as the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) denied the applications, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's ruling in part, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his assertion of bias; and (2) because the BIA upheld an adverse credibility determination that the IJ reached in part based on an inconsistency in Petitioner's story that simply was not an inconsistency, the BIA's ruling affirming the IJ's denial of that claim must be vacated. View "Pujols v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his request to administratively close his removal proceedings. An immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed from the United States after he admitted that he had committed acts that disqualified him from obtaining cancellation of removal: He twice “encouraged” his eldest son to enter the United States illegally. Petitioner now argues that the “encouraged” component of the alien-smuggling statute, 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(6)(E)(i), is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment, that it is unconstitutionally vague, and that it violates the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause. He also contends that the agency abused its discretion in denying his motion for administrative closure.   The Ninth Circuit denied his petition. The court rejected Petitioner’s contention that its interpretation creates overlap with the other verbs in the section, explaining that, because no interpretation could avoid excess language here, the canon against superfluity had limited force. Further, the court explained that, even if it had doubt about its interpretation, the canon of constitutional avoidance would militate in its favor. Next, the court rejected Petitioner’s argument that section 1182(a)(6)(E)(i) is unconstitutionally vague. The court concluded that his concession that he “encouraged” his son’s unlawful entry foreclosed his facial challenge because an individual who has engaged in conduct that is clearly covered by a statute cannot complain of vagueness as applied to others. Finally, the court held that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying administrative closure, explaining that the agency considered the applicable factors and explained its conclusions. View "J. MARQUEZ-REYES V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Cabrera-Ruiz, a Mexican national, has a long history of entries into the U.S., deportations after convictions for crimes of varying severity, and subsequent reentries. In 2018, Drug Enforcement Administration agents arrested Cabrera-Ruiz for a suspected drug trafficking offense. Cabrera-Ruiz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry instead and received a time-served sentence. Facing deportation. Cabrera-Ruiz applied for deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture.The immigration judge denied Cabrera-Ruiz relief, relying heavily on an adverse credibility determination. The BIA dismissed Cabrera-Ruiz’s appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied his petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions. The court noted that Cabrera-Ruiz made four inconsistent statements regarding the drugs, his experiences with Mexican cartels, and his fear of return and once told an Asylum Officer that he did not fear persecution or torture. Arrested for drugs but sentenced only for an immigration offense, Cabrera-Ruiz claims to fear being perceived as a “snitch” and that he has gang tattoos that would draw unwanted cartel and police attention throughout Mexico but Cabrera-Ruiz had previously lived in Mexico with those tattoos. In addition, Cabrera-Ruiz completed an ICE interview without mentioning 27 days of torture that he subsequently claimed. View "Cabrera-Ruiz v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). His application was denied when USCIS determined that he was ineligible for naturalization. Petitioner filed an administrative appeal, and in response, the agency sent him a notice to appear at a hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1447(a) After Petitioner failed to appear, the agency affirmed the denial of his application. Petitioner brought an action seeking review alleging, among other things, that the agency failed to follow its own procedures in denying his application. The district court held that, by not attending the hearing, Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. Section 1421(c). Because the district court held the exhaustion requirement to be jurisdictional, the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.   The Second Circuit held that the district court erred when it treated 8 U.S.C. Section 1421(c) as a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court held that Petitioner’s claim may not proceed because the government properly raised Petitioner’s failure to attend the hearing as a failure to exhaust. Thus, Section 1421(c)’s exhaustion requirement must be enforced. Petitioner’s noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement means that he failed to state a claim, and thus the court affirmed the judgment of the district court on that ground. View "Donnelly v. CARRP" on Justia Law

Petitioner was publicly marked as a terrorist and threatened with torture over social media by Nicaraguan government operatives, repeatedly verbally threatened with death by supporters of the Ortega regime and received a second death threat— this time during a direct confrontation—after he was seriously beaten by six members of the Sandinista Youth. The Ninth Circuit explained that the threats were credible given the history and context of the Ortega regime’s killing and torture of its political opponents.   The Ninth Circuit (1) granted Petitioner’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and related relief, and remanded, holding that the record compelled a finding that Petitioner’s past experiences constituted persecution and that the Board erred in its analysis of other issues; and (2) dismissed as moot Petitioner’s petition for review of the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen   The court held that the record compelled the conclusion that Petitioner’s experiences in Nicaragua constituted persecution. The court explained that the court has consistently recognized that being forced to flee from one’s home in the face of an immediate threat of severe physical violence or death is squarely encompassed within the rubric of persecution. Here, Petitioner was forced to flee three separate times after being personally targeted with violence and threatened with death for his political views. Further,the court wrote that an applicant may suffer persecution based on the cumulative effect of several incidents, even if no single incident rises to the level of persecution. View "MARIO FLORES MOLINA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law