Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Gilberto Azael Leon Perez, a Mexican national and legal permanent resident of the United States, who was convicted of attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14, in violation of Nevada law. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged Perez as removable based on his conviction, which they argued constituted an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). An immigration judge agreed, finding that the conviction was for an attempted aggravated felony that rendered Perez removable from the United States. Perez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal, thus affirming the immigration judge's removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was tasked with reviewing the case. The court had to decide whether their precedent, which sets out the generic definition of sexual abuse of a minor, was clearly irreconcilable with a Supreme Court decision, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. The court held that it was not. The court also held that the BIA did not err in concluding that Perez’s conviction categorically constituted an attempted “sexual abuse of a minor” aggravated felony that renders him removable. Therefore, the court denied Perez's petition for review. View "PEREZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Purushothaman Rajaram, a naturalized U.S. citizen, alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc., refused to hire him because it preferred to hire noncitizens holding H1B visas, to whom it could pay lower wages. Rajaram claimed that this constituted employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits discrimination in hiring against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship.The district court dismissed Rajaram's complaint, ruling that section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination based on U.S. citizenship. Rajaram appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation of section 1981. The appellate court held that the statutory text of section 1981 prohibits employers from discriminating against U.S. citizens. The court reasoned that an employer that discriminates against U.S. citizens gives one class of people—noncitizens—a greater right to make contracts than U.S. citizens. This interpretation, the court held, is consistent with the plain language of the statute, which guarantees that all persons shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Rajaram's employment discrimination action and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court concluded that section 1981 does prohibit discrimination in hiring against U.S. citizens on the basis of their citizenship. View "RAJARAM V. META PLATFORMS, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves Gerson Eduardo Alfaro Manzano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who fled to the United States after being persecuted for his Jehovah's Witness faith. In El Salvador, Alfaro Manzano preached to the youth of his hometown to dissuade them from joining gangs. This led to him being attacked, threatened, and nearly killed by gang members. He sought asylum in the United States, arguing that his faith would be a central reason for his persecution in El Salvador.The immigration judge (IJ) granted Alfaro Manzano withholding of removal but denied asylum, finding that his religion would be "a reason" for his persecution but not "one central reason" sufficient for asylum eligibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that the gang's desire to increase its wealth and power was the primary reason for targeting Alfaro Manzano, while religion provided only an incidental or subordinate reason.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the record compelled the conclusion that Alfaro Manzano's faith would be "one central reason" for his persecution. The court clarified that a motive can be a central reason if it, standing alone, would lead the persecutors to harm the individual. The court found that even in the absence of the gang's desire to extort him, Alfaro Manzano's religion, standing alone, would lead the persecutors to harm him. The court remanded the case for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion in determining whether to grant Alfaro Manzano asylum. View "MANZANO V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who were selected in the diversity visa lottery for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. The plaintiffs argued that the Department of State unlawfully suspended, deprioritized, and delayed the processing of their visa applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that these actions prevented them from receiving visas before the fiscal-year-end deadlines.The district courts agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered the Department of State to continue processing applications and issuing visas after the statutory deadlines had passed. The Department of State appealed these decisions, arguing that the courts lacked the authority to order such relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the district courts lacked the authority to order the Department of State to continue processing applications and issuing visas after the statutory deadlines. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline for issuing visas was clear and unambiguous, and neither history nor context provided any basis for departing from it. The court further noted that the plaintiffs did not have a substantive entitlement to the visas, and decisions regarding the prioritization and processing of visa applications implicated weighty concerns of foreign policy and national security. The court reversed the remedial orders of the district courts and remanded the cases with instructions to enter judgment for the government. View "Goodluck v. Biden" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Ravi Teja, an Indian citizen, who paid thousands of dollars to enroll at the "University of Farmington," expecting to take classes. Unbeknownst to him, the University was a fictitious entity created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of an undercover operation to target fraud involving student visas. When the operation came to light, the government neither provided the education Ravi had paid for nor refunded his money. Ravi filed a lawsuit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims, alleging a breach of contract and an accompanying breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Ravi's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without addressing other issues. The court reasoned that its jurisdiction under the Tucker Act does not extend to contracts entered into by the government when acting as a sovereign unless those contracts unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach. The court concluded that the government was acting in its sovereign capacity as it entered into the alleged contract in furtherance of an undercover law-enforcement operation, and that the alleged contract did not unmistakably subject the government to damages in the event of breach.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appeals Court concluded that the Claims Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Tucker Act over the agreement alleged by Ravi. The court disagreed with the Claims Court's interpretation of the Tucker Act, stating that the contract in question did not concern what was promised to happen or not to happen in a different proceeding in another adjudicatory forum, and thus did not fall into the narrow exception carved out by precedent. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, noting that other grounds not reached by the Claims Court but raised by the government as alternative bases to affirm warranted further exploration. View "RAVI v. US " on Justia Law

Juan Santiago Lopez, a Mexican citizen, sought to overturn an immigration judge's denial of his request for cancellation of removal. Lopez had been in the United States for nearly 20 years, working for the same company and raising four children with his wife. However, he had also accumulated three convictions for driving while intoxicated. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him after his third conviction. Lopez conceded his removability but applied for cancellation of removal relief, arguing that his family circumstances, particularly the burden his removal would place on his wife, warranted cancellation.The immigration judge denied Lopez's request for cancellation of removal but granted his request for voluntary departure. The judge acknowledged Lopez's positive equities, such as his long-term residence, employment, and family ties in the U.S., but found that his history of drunk driving and disregard for U.S. laws outweighed these factors. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Lopez challenged the immigration judge's discretionary decision and argued that the missing date and time information in his Notice to Appear required termination of removal proceedings. The court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, which clarified that courts lack jurisdiction to review substantive challenges to an immigration judge's discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal. The court also rejected Lopez's argument about the Notice to Appear, noting that objections to such violations can be forfeited if not raised in a timely manner. View "Lopez v. Garland" on Justia Law

This case arose from a raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at Abel Ramirez-Peñaloza’s family home in Heber City, Utah. After Mr. Ramirez-Peñaloza was indicted for unlawful entry into the U.S., ICE officials attempted to arrest him at his home. During two searches of his home, officials detained and questioned his family members. The plaintiffs, some of Mr. Ramirez-Peñaloza’s family members who were detained during the searches, filed claims against the U.S. and the agents alleging Fourth Amendment and state law violations.The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, but allowed three claims to go to trial, where a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers on the excessive use of force and false arrest claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the dismissed claims were barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (FTCA) judgment bar, which precludes suits against federal employees after the entry of final judgment on a claim against the U.S. for an analogous cause of action. Since the district court entered final judgment in favor of the U.S. on the plaintiffs’ analogous FTCA claims, the claims against the individual defendants were barred. View "Ramirez v. Reddish" on Justia Law

The case involves Carlos Inestroza-Tosta, a native and citizen of Honduras, who illegally entered the United States multiple times and was removed on each occasion. After his third illegal entry, he was apprehended following an arrest for aggravated assault. His prior order of removal was reinstated, but he claimed a fear of returning to Honduras and sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. His requests were denied by the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), leading to his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The BIA dismissed Inestroza-Tosta's appeal, affirming the IJ's denial of his motion for administrative closure and his applications for statutory withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA held that Inestroza-Tosta had not established that any harm he experienced or feared was connected to a protected ground, and his proposed particular social group, "gang violence recipients," was not recognized by law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the 30-day deadline for a would-be immigrant to seek judicial review of a "final order of removal" is nonjurisdictional. The court also held that an order of removal is not final until a decision has been made on the alien’s request for withholding of removal. Applying these conclusions to this case, the court ruled that Inestroza-Tosta timely sought review of the BIA’s denial of his requests for statutory withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. However, his petition failed on the merits. Although he suffered persecution in the past, he could not demonstrate a clear probability of future harm based on a protected status or trait. Therefore, while his petition for review was timely, it was denied. View "Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

The case involves Sandra Muñoz, an American citizen, and her husband Luis Asencio-Cordero, a citizen of El Salvador. The couple sought to obtain an immigrant visa for Asencio-Cordero to live in the United States. After several interviews, a consular officer denied Asencio-Cordero's application, citing a provision that renders inadmissible a noncitizen whom the officer believes seeks to engage in unlawful activity. Asencio-Cordero and Muñoz sued the Department of State, claiming that it had abridged Muñoz’s constitutional liberty interest in her husband’s visa application by failing to give a sufficient reason why Asencio-Cordero is inadmissible under the “unlawful activity” bar.The District Court granted summary judgment to the State Department, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment, holding that Muñoz had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in her husband’s visa application and that the State Department was required to give Muñoz a reason for denying her husband’s visa. The court further held that by declining to give Muñoz more information earlier in the process, the State Department had forfeited its entitlement to insulate its decision from judicial review under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, holding that a citizen does not have a fundamental liberty interest in her noncitizen spouse being admitted to the country. The Court noted that while Congress has extended special treatment to marriage in immigration matters, it has never made spousal immigration a matter of right. The Court also noted that the assertion of a procedural due process right in someone else's legal proceeding would have unsettling collateral consequences. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. View "Department of State v. Munoz" on Justia Law

The case involves Martha Isabel Rosales-Mendez, a Honduran native who illegally entered the United States. After being apprehended by border patrol agents, she was served with a notice to appear for a removal hearing. The agents recorded an address provided by her boyfriend over the phone, which turned out to be incorrect. Consequently, Rosales-Mendez did not receive the second notice setting the date and time of her removal hearing, leading to her being ordered removed in absentia when she failed to appear.Rosales-Mendez's case was initially reviewed by an immigration judge who ordered her removal in absentia after she failed to attend the hearing. She later discovered the removal order and moved to reopen the removal proceeding, arguing lack of notice. However, the immigration judge denied the motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision, stating that since Rosales-Mendez failed to provide a correct address, the officials were excused from providing her notice of her removal hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Rosales-Mendez's petition for review. The court held that immigration officials were not required to give notice of a removal hearing to an alien who provided them an inaccurate home address. The court reasoned that Rosales-Mendez, through her boyfriend, provided an incorrect address and failed to correct it, thereby forfeiting her right to actual notice of her removal hearing. The court concluded that Rosales-Mendez was properly ordered removed in absentia. View "Rosales-Mendez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law