Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that, while the BIA's decision is no model of clarity and is disappointingly conclusory, it recited the appropriate standards of review. The court had no reason to conclude that the BIA did not follow these standards and reviewed the IJ's findings of fact for clear error and ultimate legal determination of good moral character de novo. Finally, petitioner's contention that the BIA failed to provide a reasoned basis for denying his motion to remand is belied by the record. View "Dominguez Hernandez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removeable. The IJ concluded that petitioner's conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, Fla. Stat. 810.02(3)(b), is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).The court explained that Florida has applied section 810.02(3)(b) to a dwelling which was not occupied prior to or after the entry, State v. Bennett, 565 So. 2d 803, 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and that application impacts whether a violation of section 810.02(3)(b) is a CIMT. However, neither the IJ nor the BIA address petitioner's impact of Bennett here. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the BIA to address Bennett under the realistic probability component of the categorical approach. View "Lauture v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Garmendia testified that he first entered the U.S. in 2017 although there was evidence that he had previously been returned to El Salvador. In 2019, he was arrested as an active MS-13 gang member. After the IJ granted a continuance to secure counsel, Garmendia stated that he wanted to proceed without counsel, had “no” mental health issues, and understood the procedural rights explained by the IJ. Later, represented by counsel, Garmendia sought asylum and withholding of removal, citing his membership in a particular social group, political opinion, and the Convention Against Torture. Before his hearing, Garmendia’s counsel withdrew; he confirmed that he wanted to proceed. When questioned about inconsistencies with his application, Garmendia stated that he had “issues remembering things.” Garmendia did not press the political opinion or torture grounds. The IJ ordered him removed, finding Garmendia’s application untimely under the one-year requirement; that Garmendia’s testimony was internally inconsistent and implausible as "inconsistent with the operations of MS-13”; that no social group had been identified; that there was no past persecution and no well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed. Garmendia did not contest that he had suffered no past persecution.The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. The IJ did not violate Garmendia’s due process rights by failing to develop the record or provide a fundamentally fair hearing. Substantial evidence supports the decision on the merits. View "Hernandez Garmendia v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit concluded that, under its precedents, there can be no doubt that a Notice to Appear that omits information regarding the time and date of the initial removal hearing is nevertheless adequate to vest jurisdiction in the Immigration Court, so long as a notice specifying this information is later sent to the alien. The court also concluded that using a false document in connection with petitioner's application for a U.S. passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a), requires that an offender make a material misrepresentation with the intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government, and thus it is a crime involving moral turpitude that renders petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to terminate removal proceedings and his application for cancellation of removal. View "Cupete v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitions for review challenging the BIA's orders denying petitioner's motion to reopen. The court concluded that petitioner's arguments regarding the deficiency of his notice to appear are foreclosed by precedent. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen where the evidence petitioner submitted failed to demonstrate the kind of materially changed country conditions that would warrant an exception to the time limit for motions to reopen. In this case, although petitioner submitted numerous articles and reports, he did not show how any of them, alone or taken together, draw a meaningful comparison between the conditions in Mexico for his asserted social groups at the time of his motion to reopen and those at the time of his removal hearing. Furthermore, a change in personal conditions, petitioner's HIV diagnosis here, cannot alone, without further support from other changed conditions, qualify as changed country conditions. Accordingly, the court did not reach petitioner's claims concerning his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. View "Garcia v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part a petition challenging petitioner's removability based on an aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for attempting to launder money in violation of Tennessee law. The court concluded that only two of petitioner's five claims in his petition for review have been exhausted. The court also concluded that Tennessee Code section 39- 14- 903(b)(1) was divisible by subsection in light of Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243, 2248–49 (2016). Finally, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in concluding that Subsection (b) was a categorical match with the generic crime of money laundering. View "Fakhuri v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the government defendants' motion for summary judgment, upholding the denial of plaintiff's Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her husband. USCIS denied the petition because it concluded that the husband's first marriage was fraudulently entered for the purpose of evading immigration laws.The court concluded that the denial of the I-130 petition was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion where the record before the agency was lengthy and extensive. In this case, there is direct evidence of fraud where a previous spouse admitted that her marriage to the husband was a sham and plaintiff's claims to the contrary are unavailing. The court discerned no clear error of judgment in the BIA's final determination that there was substantial and probative evidence of marriage fraud. View "Iyawe v. Garland" on Justia Law

Oluwajana became a lawful U.S. permanent resident in 2011. In 2017, he was convicted of criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Charged with removability, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), he was unrepresented throughout immigration court proceedings. Oluwajana timely appealed his removal order and retained counsel.His attorney requested a copy of Oluwajana’s immigration file. The BIA set a date of February 3, 2021, for any brief to be filed. As the date neared, Oluwajana’s counsel still had not received the file. The BIA extended the due date to February 24. While a second extension request was pending, counsel received the file on February 16. Counsel advised the BIA that he could not prepare a brief in time. The BIA denied the second extension request but informed counsel that he could submit a late brief with a motion for its consideration. Oluwajana’s counsel filed the motion and brief, alleging due process violations, on March 8.The BIA rejected Oluwajana’s brief in a “cursory and factually erroneous” footnote and concluded that Oluwajana’s state convictions rendered him removable and that he was ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal or other relief. The BIA dismissed Oluwajana’s appeal without directly addressing the arguments raised in his brief. The Seventh Circuit remanded; any reasonable exercise of discretion required acceptance of Oluwajana’s brief. View "Oluwajana v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied in part and granted in part a petition for review of the BIA's decision determining that petitioner's criminal convictions rendered him removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The panel concluded that the BIA correctly determined that petitioner's conviction for domestic violence, in violation of California Penal Code 273.5(a), rendered him removable, but remanded for the BIA to consider whether his rape conviction for felony rape of an unconscious person, in violation of California Penal Code 261(a)(4), is an aggravated felony barring cancellation of removal. On remand, the BIA must consider whether the generic federal definition of rape includes intercourse involving consent obtained through fraud. View "Valdez Amador v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the BIA dismissing appeal from an order of the IJ denying applications for asylum and withholding of removal and denying an alternative motion to remand for consideration of voluntary departure. Petitioner argues that she suffered persecution and that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her anti-police corruption political opinion and her membership in various particular social groups.The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner failed to show that the harm she suffered in Guatemala rises to the level of persecution or that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. However, petitioner's notice to appear did not contain all of the relevant information and the Government indicates that the matter should be remanded, in part, to the BIA for consideration of her request for voluntary departure in light of Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Therefore, the court granted the petition as to the stop-time issue, and remanded to the BIA for consideration under Niz-Chavez and other relevant precedents. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Gregorio-Osorio v. Garland" on Justia Law