Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

After removal proceedings were instituted against Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, Petitioner conceded his removability but applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. In support, Petitioner claimed his unfavorable financial prospects in Ecuador made him fearful of returning against his native country. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the BIA denied. Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the BIA reconsider its decision rejecting his claim of persecution as well as a second motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of his prior counsel. The BIA denied both motions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration where the BIA correctly found that Petitioner did not allege grounds for withholding of removal. and (2) denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner did not carry his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Muyubisnay-Cungachi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Because the DHS had also initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner's cousin, who also applied for similar relief, the two sets of proceedings were consolidated. After a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied the cousins' applications, grounding her decision on a determination that neither man had testified credibly. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders of removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's issues even though it was Petitioner's cousin who raised them before the BIA; (2) the IJ's adverse credibility determination was correctly upheld because it was adequately tied to substantial evidence in the record; and (3) the IJ's denial of Petitioner's mid-trial request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. View "Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the U.S. in 2001 but ultimately overstayed their visas. Conceding their removability, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, contending that if they went back to Albania, they would become a target as a result of their political beliefs and activities. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' requests. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA and the IJ's denial of the asylum claim, holding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including evidence of a fundamental change in Albania such that Petitioners did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As Petitioners failed to show they were eligible for asylum, they were similarly ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. View "Vasili v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner then began working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to identify sellers of fraudulent immigration documents. Due to her work as an informant, Petitioner faced harassment and threats from people in the United States and in Brazil. Eventually, Petitioner stopped assisting the ICE because of the harassment, after which the government reinstated a prior removal order against her. Petitioner sought withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, claiming that she feared returning to Brazil due to threats she had received for her work with the ICE. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the persecution Petitioner faced was "on account of a personal vendetta and not on account of her membership in a particular social group." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that it could not overturn the determination that the risk Petitioner faced was personal and not due to her membership in a social group. View "Costa v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, pled guilty in state court to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The Department of Homeland Security later ordered Petitioner's removal. Thereafter, Petitioner successfully sought vacatur of his criminal conviction. After Petitioner had been removed to the Dominican Republic, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion, invoking a regulation known as the "post-departure bar," which precludes a noncitizen from filing a motion to reopen after his departure from the United States. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the post-departure bar cannot prevent a noncitzen from invoking his statutory right to file a motion to reopen. View "Perez Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Respondent was involved in lengthy removal proceedings that culminated in her filing of a motion to reopen with the immigration judge that raised ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Respondent's appeals, concluding that, pursuant to a set of regulations known as the "post-departure bar," the agency lacked jurisdiction to entertain Respondent's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Respondent's petition for review, holding (1) as found in Perez Santana v. Holder, the post-departure bar conflicts with the unambiguous language of the motion to reopen statute; and (2) consequently, the regulation, in the circumstances applicable to this petition for review, cannot preclude Respondent from vindicating her right to seek reopening of her removal proceedings. View "Boliero v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2004, Lie, a Christian and ethnic-Chinese citizen of Indonesia was charged with removability as a noncitizen who overstayed his visa. He conceded removability, but applied for asylum and withholding of removal. In 2006, an Immigration Judge denied his applications. In 2008, the BIA remanded for further consideration of Lie's claim that he would face persecution as a Christian and ethnic Chinese Indonesian. In 2011, the IJ again denied the applications. In 2012, the BIA dismissed the appeal, finding that Lie had failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution. Lie did not seek judicial review, but filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied. The First Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Lie v. Holder" on Justia Law

Cano, a 40-year-old citizen of Colombia, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1981. Following a 1992 conviction for shoplifting and a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in 1997, the government initiated removal proceedings in 2001. Cano denied that he was removable and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). Acknowledging Cano's extensive criminal history, including numerous additional charges, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal in light of evidence of Cano’s substantial mental disability. The BIA reversed. Following remand, Cano filed a new application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The First Circuit declined to review the BIA reversal because the second application is currently pending review by the BIA. View "Cano-Saldarriaga v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of unlawfully transferring a firearm around the same time that the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. An immigration judge found that Petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(C) and pretermitted Petitioner's previously filed application for cancellation of removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that Defendnat's delivery of a firearm to a purchaser constituted "trafficking in firearms" under the statute. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA's definition of "trafficking in firearms" as encompassing any commercial exchange was reasonable and consistent with the statute. View "Soto-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ghanaian national who entered the United States without inspection, conceded removability after immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner sought adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) and also applied for non-lawful permanent resident (LPR) cancellation of removal, alleging that his U.S. citizen child would suffer if he were moved. The agency found Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal and also denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider and reopen. The agency based its decision on the finding that Petitioner had misrepresented to immigration officials the circumstances of his marriage. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency did not err in concluding that Petitioner was inadmissible, and thus ineligible, for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal; and (2) Petitioner's additional evidence about the hardship of his family members would not have remedied the agency's finding of ineligibility for both cancellation and adjustment due to Petitioner's material misrepresentations. View "Agyei v. Holder" on Justia Law