Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of the USCIS's denial of her Form I-360 self-petition for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS denied the petition on the grounds that it was contrary to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. Petitioner claimed that USCIS's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because petitioner's husband did not satisfy the fifth requirement under the plain reading of section 1 of the CAA, the alien must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, petitioner could not self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994's, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1902, amendments to the CAA. Further, the USCIS's distinction between non-Cuban aliens on the basis of a Cuban spouse's adjustment status did not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum and ordering him removed. At issue was whether the BIA erred when it overturned the IJ's factual findings that petitioner would likely be forcibly sterilized upon returning to China. The court concluded that the BIA committed legal error by making its own de novo factual findings and therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for the BIA to review the IJ's decision under the proper clear error standard. View "Zhu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that the pattern and practice delineated in Section 223.11(m)(2) of the Immigration Service Adjudicator's Field Manual violated the plain and unambiguous language of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. After reviewing the statutory language, the court concluded that the Immigration Service's pattern and practice of limiting the date of lawful permanent residence based on the date of marriage was contrary to the unambiguous language of the CAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Hernandez v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in gang violence in Honduras since he filed his previous motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Honduran national, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This appeal involved the constitutional separation of powers and the limited judicial role in the extradition of a foreign national. On appeal, petitioner contended that the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment barred his extradition by the Secretary of State, that the murder of the victim constituted a political offense for which he could not be extradited, and there was no valid extradition treaty in force between Honduras and the United States. The court held that petitioner's first argument was not ripe because the Secretary of State has not yet determined whether he was likely to be tortured nor decided whether to extradite him, and his other arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and affirmed in part the denial of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, lifted the stay of the extradition proceedings, and remanded with instructions to dismiss petitioner's claim under the Convention Against Torture. View "Meza v. U.S. Attorney General, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA that vacated an immigration judge's decision that he was eligible for a hardship waiver under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The IJ had determined that petitioner was eligible for a hardship waiver based on a misreading of the court's decisions in Lanier v. United States Attorney General. Petitioner argued that, as an alien lawfully present in the United States, he need not concurrently apply for an adjustment of his status, but the court must defer to the contrary interpretation of section 212(h) by the BIA. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the interpretation by the BIA would violate his right to equal protection as a component of due process of law. Petitioner's alternative argument that he qualified as an inadmissible alien eligible for a hardship waiver under section 212(h) also failed. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Poveda v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This appeal involved challenges to ten provisions of Alabama's House Bill 56, the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56). The stated purpose of the legislation was to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities. The court found that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits of its challenges to sections 10, 11(a), 13(a), 16, 17, and 27 of H.B. 56. The court agreed with the United States that it was not likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to section 12(a) or section 18 at this time. The court also found that the United States had not shown at this stage that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to section 30. Finally, the court dismissed the United States' appeal as to section 28 as moot, as the court's opinion in the private plaintiffs' companion case fully disposed of that issue. View "United States v. State of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of sections 7 and 8 of House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (H.B. 87), on the ground that each was preempted by federal law. H.B. 87 was enacted to address the problem of illegal immigration within the state. The court held that section 7 could not be reconciled with the federal immigration scheme or the individual provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part the district court's order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of section 7. The court reversed in part the portion of that order enjoining section 8. View "Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Governor of Georgia, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged various provisions of Alabama's House Bill 56, the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56). Because the court found that the United States was likely to succeed on its claims that sections 10 and 27 of H.B. 56 were preempted, the court dismissed the HICA plaintiffs' appeal as to those sections as moot. The court vacated as moot the district court's injunction of section 8 and remanded for the dismissal of the challenge to that section, as the statutory amendment had removed the challenged language. In light of the court's decision on the substantive provisions of sections 10, 11, and 13, the court vacated as moot the district court's order insofar as it preliminarily enjoined the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h). The court found that at least one of the HICA plaintiffs had standing to challenge section 28 and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for the entry of a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court concluded, for reasons stated in the United State's companion cases, Nos. 11-14532, 11-14674, that the HICA plaintiffs could not succeed on the merits of their facial challenges to sections 12, 18, and 30 at this time. View "Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al. v. Governor of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner Odulene Dormescar, a native and citizen of Haiti, appealed a removal order issued by an immigration judge because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal of that order. He has petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review. His petition presented three issues: (1) whether the Eleventh Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction; if it did, then the second (2) issue was whether res judicata barred the Department of Homeland Security’s proceedings against Petitioner based on the aggravated felony conviction. If it did not, the third (3) issue was whether the Department had the authority to amend the notice to appear to charge Petitioner as "admitted to the United States, but . . . removable" when he was originally charged as an inadmissible "arriving alien." Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction over this case, res judicata did not apply, and that the Department had the authority to amend the notice to appear to charge Petitioner as admitted but removable. View "Dormescar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law