Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was ordered removed after being convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree under New York Penal Law (NYPL) § 130.60(2). This conviction was deemed an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(A) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because it constituted "sexual abuse of a minor." Approximately a year later, the petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion as untimely and concluded that he did not warrant equitable tolling.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially determined that the petitioner’s conviction was an aggravated felony, rendering him removable and ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. The IJ also found the conviction to be a "particularly serious crime," barring withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion to remand for consideration of new evidence regarding his mental health and diabetes diagnosis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition challenging the removal order, citing its recent decision in Debique v. Garland, which held that a conviction under NYPL § 130.60(2) is categorically an aggravated felony. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments that Debique was not binding and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo undermined its precedential force. The court also denied the petition challenging the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, finding that the BIA had a reasonable basis for concluding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence for the entire period between the expiration of the 90-day deadline and the filing of the motion. View "Garcia Pinach v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jonathan Alexander Colorado Navarro, a former MS-13 gang member, came to the United States after killing three people in El Salvador. He initially omitted this information in his asylum applications, only fully confessing during his testimony before an Immigration Judge (IJ). Despite these omissions and other lies, the IJ found him credible and concluded that he qualified for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on the likelihood of being tortured in El Salvador.The Department of Homeland Security issued Colorado a Notice to Appear, charging him with being in the country illegally. At his initial immigration court hearing, he admitted his illegal status and sought asylum and CAT protection. Colorado went through three asylum applications, each progressively revealing more information about his past crimes. The IJ granted him deferral of removal under CAT, finding his testimony credible and determining that he was likely to be tortured if returned to El Salvador.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviewed the IJ's decision and reversed it, finding clear error in the IJ's credibility determination and the likelihood of torture analysis. The BIA noted inconsistencies and omissions in Colorado's applications and testimony, undermining his credibility. The BIA also found that the evidence did not support the IJ's conclusion that Colorado was likely to be tortured, either by Salvadoran officials or gangs, if returned.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusions. The court agreed that Colorado's omissions and inconsistent explanations undermined his credibility and that the evidence did not establish a sufficient likelihood of torture. The court also noted that Colorado's claim that the BIA should have remanded the case for further testimony was unreviewable because it was not raised before the BIA. Consequently, the court denied Colorado's petition for review. View "Colorado Navarro v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Roger Esteban Real, a native and citizen of Colombia, participated in protests in his home country, leading to his arrest and mistreatment by police. Fearing for his safety, he fled to the United States with his family in March 2022. Upon arrival, he surrendered to immigration authorities, who did not issue him a Notice to Appear (NTA) or inquire about his fear of returning to Colombia. He was instructed to attend a court hearing in 2025 and to check in regularly using a cell phone provided by the authorities.Real was later arrested for crimes related to a domestic dispute, and two months after this arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued him an NTA. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable and, in July 2023, Real applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ granted him withholding of removal but denied his asylum application, citing his failure to meet the one-year filing deadline and lack of extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government's failure to notify Real of the one-year asylum application deadline did not constitute a due process violation. Additionally, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Real's claim of extraordinary circumstances excusing his late filing, as such determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. View "Real v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

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