Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, sought a continuance of his deportation proceedings to await the availability of an immigrant visa based on his approved I-140 petition. The IJ denied petitioner's motion for a continuance and the BIA affirmed the IJ's judgment. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. The court agreed with petitioner's argument that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi and Matter of Rajah. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacated the decision of the BIA, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ferreira v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged certain rules issued by the Department of Labor governing the employment of temporary, non-agricultural foreign workers, asserting that the Department had no authority to issue these rules. The district court agreed and granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the rules during the pendency of the action. The court found that the district court's legal conclusion regarding plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits was without error, and its finding of fact supporting its conclusion that none of the other factors militates against the issuance of the preliminary injunction was without clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bayou Lawn & Landscape Svcs, et al v. Pineros Y Campesinos Unido, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained for eight months by immigration officials and filed a complaint for money damages against a federal official afterwards. The parties initially agreed that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and the district court determined that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), barred complaints only by aliens. The district court later dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff's appeal of that decision was pending, the United States issued an official notice of cancellation of plaintiff's citizenship on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud and illegally, and the parties then disagreed about whether plaintiff was a citizen. The court vacated the order that dismissed the complaint and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and, if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. View "Belleri v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

The BIA found that petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found petitioner removable and denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because his underlying offense - pointing a firearm at another person, in violation of S.C. Code 16-23-410 - was a particularly serious crime of violence that disqualified him from those forms of relief. The BIA also denied his claim for CAT relief based on factual determinations that he would not be tortured upon return to his native Jamaica. After thorough review of petitioner's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that none of petitioner's claims justified the grant of his petition. View "Cole v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that she was persecuted by family-planning officials in China for being pregnant out of wedlock. The BIA and IJ concluded that petitioner lacked credibility because the substance of her story did not conform to State Department accounts of life in China. In the absence of any findings as to petitioner's demeanor, the consistency of her statements, or some other individualized reason for questioning her credibility, the court could not say that the IJ's adverse-credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons. Accordingly, although the court dismissed that portion of petitioner's claim relating to CAT relief for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court granted the petition as it related to the BIA's adverse-credibility determination, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The court concluded that it was unclear whether the BIA's current interpretation of section 212(h) - that an alien seeking section 212(h) relief who had not filed an adjustment of status application must remain "outside our borders while applying for relief" - overruled Matter of Sanchez or if the BIA's current interpretation essentially functioned as a continuation of its precedent under Sanchez, in which case the BIA would treat an alien satisfying the conditions of Sanchez as if the alien were "outside our borders while applying for relief." Therefore, the court remanded to the BIA for the purpose of allowing it to consider petitioner's case in light of the court's intervening decision in Poveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen. and to apply Sanchez to petitioner's case if the BIA finds it applicable. On remand, the BIA should also reconsider petitioner's case in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Judulang v. Holder. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lawal v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal, as well as the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider. Petitioner was charged with removability for committing an "aggravated felony" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) when he pled guilty to violating Georgia Code 16-8-14, a statute that criminalized shoplifting. The court concluded that a section 16-8-14 conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony; petitioner's record of conviction did not establish that he committed an aggravated felony; and the court granted the petition and reversed the BIA's rulings. View "Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order that he be deported because he was an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner conceded that his 2010 conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. At issue was whether his 2003 Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence, was also a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the Florida statute required intentional violence against an officer, it criminalized conduct that exhibited a deliberate disregard for the law, which the court considered to be a violation of the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to society. Therefore, the court concluded that the Florida conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and that the BIA properly determined that petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). View "Cano v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Bivens action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleged that three US ICE agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they arrested and detained him in connection with the initiation of removal proceedings against him. Because all of plaintiff's claims challenged actions taken to commence removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) stripped the federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Gupta v. McGahey, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum. Petitioner alleged that he had suffered past religious persecution on the basis of a 2002 incident, during which the police busted up a Christian church service in his father's home and arrested his father, who was the leader of the church, petitioner, and seven or eight other worshipers. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's account, if true, compelled a finding of past persecution. In this case, the Chinese authorities subjected petitioner, over the course of seven days, to a wide variety of harms in a concerted effort to repress his religious exercise. Those disturbing circumstances convinced the court that, if petitioner's account was to be credited, the Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner on account of his religion. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's determination that the conduct petitioner alleged did not amount to persecution. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shi v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law