Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm, was accused by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) of breaching an employment agreement under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program. The DOL alleged that Sun Valley failed to provide adequate housing, meal plans, transportation, and guaranteed work hours to its workers, as stipulated in the job order. The DOL imposed civil penalties and back wages totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars through administrative proceedings.The case was first reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed most of the DOL's findings but slightly modified the penalties and back wages. Sun Valley then appealed to the Administrative Review Board, which upheld the ALJ's decision. Subsequently, Sun Valley challenged the DOL's decision in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that the administrative proceedings violated Article III of the Constitution, among other claims. The District Court dismissed Sun Valley's claims, holding that the DOL's actions fit within the public-rights doctrine and that the agency had statutory authority to impose penalties and back wages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court. The court found that the DOL's enforcement action resembled a common law breach of contract suit, which traditionally would be heard in a court of law. The court also determined that the case did not fit within the public rights exception to Article III adjudication, as the H-2A labor certification regulations primarily concern domestic employment law rather than immigration control. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Sun Valley. View "Sun Valley Orchards LLC v. United States Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Miguel Armando Rivera Samayoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States in 1996 and has since resided in Massachusetts, where he fathered four U.S. citizen children. Rivera applied for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children, who have various health issues.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Rivera met the first three statutory requirements for cancellation of removal but denied his application, concluding that Rivera failed to demonstrate that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. The IJ considered the children's ages, health, family ties, and the economic and political conditions in Guatemala, determining that the hardship they would face was not substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member leaves the country. The IJ also noted the possibility of Rivera's voluntary departure and potential future lawful reentry.Rivera appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA agreed with the IJ's assessment of the cumulative factors and found that Rivera had not established that his children would be unable to receive necessary medical treatment whether they stayed in the U.S. or relocated to Guatemala.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and denied Rivera's petition. The court held that the BIA and IJ had properly considered the cumulative impact of Rivera's removal on his children and found no legal error in their decisions. The court concluded that Rivera did not meet the high burden of proving that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. View "Rivera Samayoa v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan native, Eder Anibal Cano-Gutierrez, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Cano-Gutierrez's claims stemmed from a series of armed robberies he experienced as a teenager in Guatemala. He testified that he was robbed five times by individuals at gang-controlled checkpoints but did not suffer physical harm or receive death threats. He fled to the United States in January 2018, fearing future harm and recruitment by the robbers.The Department of Homeland Security charged Cano-Gutierrez with removability for being present in the U.S. without authorization. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ found his testimony credible but denied his applications, concluding that the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of persecution and that he failed to show a nexus between the harm and a protected ground. The IJ also found that he did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution or that he would be targeted by government actors or with government acquiescence.The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Cano-Gutierrez did not experience persecution and failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA also found that he did not demonstrate an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution and deemed his CAT claim waived due to lack of specific challenge.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found no error in the agency's determination that Cano-Gutierrez failed to show a nexus between the robberies and a protected ground, and thus, his asylum claim failed. The court also agreed with the BIA that the CAT claim was waived. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Lidia Gomez-Gabriel, a Guatemalan native and citizen, along with her son, sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Gomez-Gabriel testified that Guatemalan gang members harassed her for money on multiple occasions and threatened her with a weapon once. After this incident, she avoided the area and had no further interactions with the gang. Fearing for their safety, she and her son fled to the United States in November 2015. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and after being detained for twelve days, they were informed about the one-year deadline to file an asylum application. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in August 2017.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application, determining that the asylum application was time-barred and that the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT applications were without merit. The Petitioners appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government that the Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding their asylum and CAT claims, as they did not raise these issues before the BIA. However, the court found that the Petitioners adequately challenged their withholding of removal claim.On the merits, the court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that Gomez-Gabriel's membership in a protected group was not a central reason for her persecution. The court found that the gang's motivation was financial gain rather than animus towards her group membership. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review. View "A. G.-G. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Ismael Adan Ortiz-Rodriguez, a non-citizen, was removed from the United States in 2017 following expedited removal proceedings initiated by DHS. In 2023, he was convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Before trial, Ortiz-Rodriguez moved to dismiss his indictment by collaterally attacking his 2017 deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), arguing that his expedited removal involved an unknowing and involuntary waiver of judicial review and violated his due process rights. The district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found Ortiz-Rodriguez guilty and sentenced him to fifty-one months of imprisonment. He appealed the decision, arguing that his 2017 expedited removal proceedings were fundamentally unfair and deprived him of judicial review. The district court also revoked his supervised release from a prior § 1326 prosecution, sentencing him to an additional fourteen months of imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Ortiz-Rodriguez did not satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) because he failed to show that the 2017 expedited removal proceedings deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review or that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The court noted that Ortiz-Rodriguez had the right to appeal his expedited removal but did not do so, and his waiver of the right to appeal was considered and intelligent. Additionally, the court found that changes in substantive law after his removal did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair or procedurally deficient. View "United States v. Ortiz-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The case involves several states and individual plaintiffs challenging an executive order issued by President Trump, which denies citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present. The district court issued a universal preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of the executive order. The defendants appealed, arguing that the states lack standing, the preliminary injunction was improperly issued, and its scope was too broad.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction, concluding that the states had standing and that the executive order likely violated both the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the states would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. The district court issued a universal injunction, determining that a geographically limited injunction would not provide complete relief to the states.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the executive order was unconstitutional as it contradicted the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. The court found that the states had standing due to the economic harm they would suffer from the loss of federal reimbursements and the administrative burden of complying with the executive order. The court also concluded that the universal preliminary injunction was necessary to provide complete relief to the states, as a geographically limited injunction would not address the administrative and financial burdens imposed by the executive order. View "Washington v. Trump" on Justia Law

Edin Anael Solis-Rodriguez, an illegal alien, brandished firearms in two separate incidents at local restaurants in Charlotte, North Carolina. In the second incident, he shot a patron, Chris Silva, at point-blank range, causing severe injuries. Solis-Rodriguez was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). He pled guilty to both counts.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him to a total of 180 months' imprisonment, with 120 months for the first count and 60 months for the second count, to be served consecutively. The court considered the presentence report, which included a 4-level enhancement for using a firearm in connection with attempted murder, resulting in a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Solis-Rodriguez's objections to the enhancement and the argument that the two offenses should be considered one continuing offense were rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Solis-Rodriguez challenged the Rule 11 colloquy as plainly erroneous and his sentence as procedurally unreasonable. The Fourth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that there was a plain error in the Rule 11 colloquy but found that it did not affect Solis-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. The court also held that the district court adequately considered and explained the sentencing factors, including Solis-Rodriguez’s age and lack of violent criminal history, and found the sentence procedurally reasonable. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Solis-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Juan Carlos Benitez-Torres, a lawful permanent resident, was stopped by police while driving a car with tinted windows. The car, not registered to him, was searched, and methamphetamine was found in hidden compartments. Benitez was charged with narcotics offenses. His family hired attorney Kenneth Reed for $15,000, but Reed appeared only four times and did not file a motion to suppress the evidence. In August 2015, Reed advised Benitez to accept a three-year plea deal without adequately explaining the immigration consequences. Benitez pleaded guilty and was deported after his release.Benitez filed a motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 in January 2023 to vacate his guilty plea, arguing he did not understand the immigration consequences and was prejudiced by this lack of understanding. The Superior Court of Orange County denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that Benitez did not understand the consequences of his plea.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that Reed did not provide adequate advice regarding the immigration consequences of the plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky. The court determined that Benitez did not meaningfully understand the mandatory deportation consequences of his plea and that there was a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea had he understood these consequences. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with directions to allow Benitez to withdraw his 2015 guilty pleas. View "People v. Benitez-Torres" on Justia Law

Jasvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without authorization in August 2018. He claimed he faced political violence in India due to his membership in the Mann Party, a rival political group. Singh was apprehended in New Mexico and processed for expedited removal. He conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. While detained, Singh went on a 74-day hunger strike to protest his detention conditions, resuming eating three weeks before his asylum hearing. Singh requested a continuance, claiming he lacked the competency to participate due to his hunger strike, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the request, finding Singh appeared healthy and competent. Singh then refused to sign his asylum application, resulting in an order of removal.Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA found that the IJ properly assessed Singh's competency and that there was no good cause for a continuance, given the time Singh had to prepare and his representation by counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Singh did not exhibit sufficient indicia of mental incompetency. The court noted that Singh was responsive to questions, appeared healthy, and had resumed eating three weeks before the hearing. The court also found that the IJ correctly assessed Singh's competency and that the BIA did not err in affirming the denial of the continuance. The court concluded that Singh had ample time to prepare for his hearing and lacked good cause for a continuance. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision and denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

CoreCivic, Inc. has contracted with the federal government since 1996 to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In 2023, CoreCivic planned to renew its contract, but New Jersey passed a law (AB 5207) prohibiting new, expanded, or renewed contracts for civil immigration detention. CoreCivic sued, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by infringing on intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. The United States supported CoreCivic, emphasizing the detention center's critical role in federal immigration enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic. The court found that AB 5207 interferes with the federal government's discretion in detaining aliens, violating intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. New Jersey appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that AB 5207 directly regulates the federal government by effectively banning contracts for immigration detention, a core federal function. The court emphasized that the law's impact on federal operations is substantial, as it would cripple ICE's ability to detain and remove aliens efficiently. The court concluded that New Jersey's law violates intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional as applied to CoreCivic. View "CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law