Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Osmani fled the Kosovo War and was admitted to the U.S as a refugee in 1999. Osmani was convicted for possession of illegal narcotics in 2019. The government sought to remove Osmani based on a prior conviction for aggravated felony theft, commission of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, and his narcotics conviction. Osmani sought adjustment of status to legal permanent resident, 8 U.S.C. 1159(a). The bases of inadmissibility may be waived for refugees, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II) “for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” Osmani claimed he had no ties or documentation linking him to Kosovo, would be unable to support himself if removed, and was a member of a persecuted ethnic minority. The government took no position on Osmani’s applications.The IJ granted Osmani an adjustment and waiver, citing Osmani’s relationship with his family and childhood PTSD. Although Osmani submitted documents describing current conditions in Kosovo, the IJ did not address that issue. The BIA agreed that Osmani’s family ties were insufficient to justify waiver and the balance of equities disfavored Osmani, then declined to remand to the IJ to supplement the record, including on conditions in Kosovo. Osmani was removed. The Seventh Circuit remanded. The BIA legally erred by considering arguments the government did not present to the IJ, put Osmani on notice of, or develop any record evidence to support. In declining to remand, the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding. View "Osmani v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jaffal, born in Jordan, sought a declaration that he is entitled to derivative U.S. citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a), which provides that “a child born outside the United States automatically acquires United States citizenship if, while the child is under the age of eighteen, the parent with legal custody of the child is naturalized while that child’s parents are legally separated.” Jaffal’s father was naturalized when Jaffal was 17 years old. Jaffal presented evidence that he was in the sole legal custody of his father when his father was naturalized and his parents were separated. The district court declined to accept Jaffal’s evidence of his parents’ divorce because there was no evidence that Jaffal’s mother participated in the Jordanian divorce.The Third Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a judgment declaring Jaffal to be a national of the United States. If a §section1432(a) petitioner establishes that a valid, legal separation was effectuated under the relevant state or foreign nation’s law, he has met the burden of establishing a legal separation. Jordanian courts had the authority to alter Jaffal’s parents’ marriage. The Jordanian divorce established Jaffal’s parents’ legal separation as a matter of law. View "Jaffal v. Director Newark New Jersey Field Office Immigration & Customs Enforcement" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming Petitioner's order of removal and denying his requests for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, holding that a conviction under R.I. Gen. Laws (RIGL) 31-9-1 is not categorically a theft offense.In 2016, Petitioner, a citizen of Cape Verde who came to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1989, was convicted in a Rhode Island superior court of driving a motor vehicle without consent of the owner or lessee, in violation of RIGL 31-9-1. Thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. Petitioner argued that he was eligible for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure because a conviction under RIGL 31-9-1 did not constitute an aggravated felony theft offense. An immigration judge (IJ) determined that Petitioner's Rhode Island conviction was categorically a theft offense, thus denying relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's opinion, holding that Petitioner's conviction under RIGL 31-9-1 did not constitute a categorical aggravated felony theft offense. View "Da Graca v. Garland" on Justia Law

Castellanos-Avalos arrived in the United States as a child in 1989. He was placed in removal proceedings in 2005 after being convicted for possession of stolen property and reckless endangerment. He retained then-attorney Mahr. While Castellanos-Avalos’s appeal of his removal order was under consideration, his family hired attorney Rios to pursue a state-bar complaint against Mahr based on Mahr’s failure to request the only relief he was arguably entitled to, voluntary departure. The Ninth Circuit denied Castellanos-Avalos’s appeal of the removal order. Castellanos-Avalos was removed to Mexico in 2008 but returned to the United States.In 2019, he was indicted for being found in the United States after having been ordered removed, 8 U.S.C. 1326. He moved to dismiss the indictment by collaterally attacking his removal order. The Ninth Circuit reversed an order granting that motion. In a criminal proceeding under section 1326, an alien may not challenge the validity of a removal order unless the alien demonstrates exhaustion of available administrative remedies; that the removal proceedings improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and that entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. Each of the statutory requirements is mandatory. Castellanos-Avalos did, in fact, seek and receive judicial review. View "United States v. Castellanos-Avalos" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner subject to removal because he committed two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). After determining that res judicata does not bar the proceedings, the court concluded that petitioner's conviction for deadly conduct qualified as a CIMT because reckless offenses may constitute CIMTs and deadly conduct, which requires an offender to take actions creating imminent danger or serious physical injury, is categorically a CIMT. The court also concluded that petitioner's 2005 adjustment to lawful permanent resident status constitutes the operative admission for purposes of this removal proceeding under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Therefore, because petitioner's convictions for deadly conduct and evading arrest occurred after he adjusted his status, he has been convicted of two CIMTs after admission to the United States. View "Diaz Esparza v. Garland" on Justia Law

Guzman-Torralva, a 35-year-old Mexican citizen, illegally entered the United States at age 19. He lives in New Jersey and has two children who are U.S. citizens. In 2018, ICE detained him as an alien present without being admitted or paroled. Attorney Krajenke represented Guzman-Torralva at his first hearing, at which he conceded removability; a second hearing was set for November 28, Guzman-Torralva was released on bond. The second hearing was rescheduled. The updated notice again warned Guzman-Torralva that failing to appear could result in an order of removal being issued in his absence. Guzman-Torralva then hired a new attorney, Fuentes, who filed an appearance and moved to change the venue of the hearing. His filings were rejected because Fuentes failed to provide proof of service on Krajenke and to properly sign and paginate the filings. Neither Guzman-Torralva, Krajenke, nor Fuentes appeared at the hearing,Guzman-Torralva was ordered removed in absentia. Guzman-Torralva then hired a third attorney and moved to reopen his removal order, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. The immigration court denied the motion because Guzman-Torralva had not filed a bar complaint against Fuentes nor adequately explained the failure to do so. The BIA denied his appeal for the same reason. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. Precedent requires more than a statement that the alien is “not interested in filing a formal complaint.” View "Guzman-Torralva v. Garland" on Justia Law

When Jimenez-Sandoval was apprehended upon entry into the United States, an immigration officer interviewed her and prepared a Record of Deportable Alien, indicating that Jimenez-Sandoval was 20 years old. Immigration officers released her on her own recognizance and served her with an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and a Notice of Hearing. Jimenez-Sandoval failed to appear at her hearing; she was ordered deported in absentia. Almost 20 years later, Jimenez-Sandoval filed a motion to reopen, seeking to set aside the order on the basis that the agency did not comply with the notice requirements for minors. Jimenez-Sandoval provided a copy of her birth certificate, which indicated that she was 17 years old when apprehended. The IJ denied her motion. The BIA dismissed her appeal.The Ninth Circuit denied Jimenez-Sandoval’s petition for review. Jimenez-Sandoval was released on her own recognizance presumably based on the immigration officers’ belief that she was not a minor. There was no adult present to assume responsibility for ensuring her appearance at future proceedings, so the requirement of notice to an adult was not triggered. View "Jimenez-Sandoval v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit granted in part Petitioner's petition appealing the board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of Petitioner's application for withholding of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 241(b)(3) and relief under article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that remand was required.In denying Petitioner's application, the immigration judge found that Defendant's testimony was entitled to limited weight and that Petitioner's failure to provide corroborating evidence was fatal to his claim for relief. The BIA summarily affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the denials of withholding of relief under the CAT and remanded the case for further consideration, holding that in light of certain irregularities in the record, this Court could not uphold the IJ's determination that the record was supported by sufficient indicia of reliability to be used in assessing Petitioner's credibility. View "Bonilla v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner's petition for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) finding Petitioner removable and ordering him removed from the United States, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction in part.At issue was the denial of Petitioner's application for adjustment of immigration status, waiver of inadmissibility, asylum withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the agency relied on a wrong legal standard and wrongfully applied that standard in his case. The First Circuit held (1) the BIA adequately considered the question of extraordinary circumstances called for in Matter of Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373 (A.G. 2002); and (2) this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the relative weight the BIA accorded to the evidence to deny the waiver of inadmissibility. View "Peulic v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part petitions for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that because petitioner presented her argument that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding before the BIA in a motion for reconsideration, it is unexhausted and the court lacked jurisdiction to consider it.The court also concluded that because petitioner agreed that there was probably a place where she could safely relocate within Guatemala, the BIA's determination that the government rebutted the presumption of future persecution is supported by substantial evidence for both of her particular social groups. In this case, the BIA reasonably interpreted her statement to mean that she did in fact know of a city or cities in Guatemala where it was probably safe for gay and transgender people to live. Finally, petitioner's CAT claim was adequately analyzed and the evidence does not compel a finding that she will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala. View "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland" on Justia Law