Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Cambodia, entered the U.S. on a non-immigrant visitor visa, overstayed, and timely applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief. The BIA dismissed. The First Circuit vacated and remanded. The court applied the law concerning corroboration as it existed before passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 302 and noted that the corroboration identified by the IJ as lacking "is far from typical." A letter from the U.S. government to support petitioner's claim that he provided information to the government at risk to himself might be inaccessible. The IJ made no findings concerning the reasonableness of the requirement or petitioner's inability to produce such corroboration. View "Soeung v. Holder" on Justia Law

Castaneda, a Peruvian officer, was accused of participation in a massacre during Peru's conflict with the Shining Path guerrilla movement. He was acquitted of charges in Peru, but his name was associated with the massacre. He and his family received death threats. Shining Path repeatedly attacked, killing innocent bystanders. They fled to the U.S. in 1991. An Immigration Judge denied an application for asylum. The BIA affirmed in 2005. While appeals were pending, Castaneda was in custody; he was released on bail in 2010. The First Circuit remanded for consideration of whether Castaneda was credible in testimony that he did not know of the massacre until after it happened. The IJ denied the application. The BIA held that Castaneda was ineligible for asylum, reasoning that Shining Path attacked not because he was a member of a specific group, military officers linked to the massacre, but as revenge. The First Circuit remanded for consideration of whether that comprised a social group. The BIA answered in the affirmative; in 2012, the IJ granted asylum. The government has not appealed, but claimed that the court lacked authority to issue final judgment. The First Circuit disagreed, noting that it explicitly retained jurisdiction to ensure a speedy final resolution. View "Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner entered the U.S. in 1988 as a visitor, overstayed, and, in 1990, married María, a fellow Colombian. The couple had two children before separating in 1995. In 1996, petitioner's father sought an immigrant visa under 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(2)(B), which permits unmarried children of an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence to obtain a visa. The petition was approved. Petitioner and Maria finalized their divorce one month later and María immediately married a U.S. citizen and attained lawful permanent resident status as his spouse. In 1999, María and petitioner ostensibly reconciled and had a third child. They remarried after Maria’s divorce. DHS denied petitioner’s request for adjustment of status and revoked his immigrant visa and began removal proceedings. An IJ denied his application for cancellation of removal finding that petitioner had failed to show that he was a "person of good moral character" while living in the U.S. Meanwhile, Maria filed a visa petition on his behalf as a permanent resident applying for naturalization. USCIS denied María's application when it determined that María's second marriage was a sham. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. Findings concerning false testimony were reasonable. View "Restrepo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Chen, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1996. In 1997, the INS instituted removal, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Chen sought political asylum and withholding of deportation under the Convention Against Torture based on religion and political opinion. An IJ found his testimony incredible and denied the application, but, noting Chen's young age and crimeless record, granted voluntary departure. Counsel withdrew Chen's appeal, stating that Chen had returned to China. Chen was actually living in the U.S., had married and was starting a family, which grew to include three children. Chen later asserted that he thought the case had been resolved in his favor and was unaware of what transpired because his lawyer had died. In 2010, Chen was apprehended and sought to reopen his removal proceedings with the BIA. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. He filed a second motion, alleging changed country conditions and that the BIA, in formulating its decision, improperly considered a 2007 Country Profile. The BIA denied the motion, finding Chen's evidence inadequate to show that he will be persecuted or tortured in China on the basis of his religion. The First Circuit denied review. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Morocco, entered the U.S. in 2001 on a nonimmigrant visa. He overstayed and married a citizen in 2004. In 2006 the two had an argument that involved a physical altercation. Wife had to have brain surgery for her injuries and petitioner was convicted of reckless conduct. He served 11 months. Wife nonetheless filed an I-130 petition to establish that they were married. DHS approved the petition, but charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). He sought a waiver and adjustment of status. Petitioner and his wife presented different versions of the fight that led to his arrest. The immigration judge ordered removal, finding that petitioner committed a crime involving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal, finding that reckless conduct under New Hampshire law is inherently a crime involving moral turpitude. View "Idy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, entered the U.S. with his family in 1997, when he was eight years old. In 2009, removal proceedings were initiated and petitioner conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, arguing that because of his claimed conversion from Islam to Christianity in 2008, he will be persecuted if returned to Jordan. There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children. Because the conversion occurred while petitioner was the subject of a criminal investigation, it was regarded as suspect. The IJ denied petitioner's applications on grounds that he and his father were not credible witnesses. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated, finding the overall negative credibility finding suspect.View "Jabri v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born and raised in Ethiopia in an influential family in the Oromo ethnic community. His relatives were active in the Mecha Tulema Association, outlawed by the Ethiopian government in 2004, and were arrested for their activities. Petitioner obtained a false passport. A statement, signed after his arrest by ICE indicated that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Ethiopia. In defense of removal, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. An IJ and the BIA rejected his claims. The First Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded for the BIA to address: whether, in light of the rebuttable presumption of credibility to which petitioner is entitled (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), he had not met his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal and, if the IJ found petitioner's testimony "otherwise credible," whether section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) required the IJ to provide petitioner with notice of the need for corroborating evidence and an opportunity to provide that evidence or explain why it was not reasonably available. View "Guta-Tolossa v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2002, petitioner a citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the U.S. without authorization and was placed in removal proceedings, where he initially denied that he was removable. He sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he would suffer persecution if returned to his homeland, based on his purported membership in a particular social group, defined as young Salvadoran men who have resisted gang recruitment and whose parents are unavailable to protect them, and for his alleged anti-gang, pro-establishment "political opinion," 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(42)(A). An Immigration Judge and the BIA rejected the arguments. The First Circuit denied an appeal, finding that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion View "Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner,a citizen of Guatemala applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 111 Stat. 2160. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he was statutorily ineligible for NACARA relief because he last entered the U.S. as a crewman (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(1)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that he was not a "crewman" when he last entered the U.S. Petitioner was given adequate notice that he was removeable for having remained in the U.S. longer than permitted; whether he was a "crewman" was only relevant to his petition for cancellation. View "Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the U.S. in 1992 with his wife and son. They overstayed their visas. A daughter was born in 1993 in Los Angeles. Ten days later, petitioner filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158 & 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16–18. In 2007, the government filed Notices to Appear in immigration court, charging the three with removability. They sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Petitioner testified that he had been attacked and threatened several times by opponents of his political party. The government noted 2007 reforms in Bangladesh. Petitioner also voiced concerns about his daughter, food shortages, substandard health care, and the cost of education for English speakers. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed an appeal. View "Hasan v. Holder" on Justia Law