Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

On January 4, 2010, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed this denial on September 8, 2011. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that the IJ and BIA did not err by (1) concluding that Petitioner's past treatment on Ukraine did not rise to the level of persecution; and (2) concluding that Petitioner had failed to establish the requisite objective basis that a reasonable person in her circumstances would fear persecution. View "Rebenko v. Holder" on Justia Law

Alas, a citizen of El Salvador, unlawfully entered the U.S. in 2003. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings, charging Alas with removability as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and for being present in the without a valid immigrant visa, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(I); 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He requested political asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ found that his testimony about gang threats and the murder of family members was credible, but that the application for political asylum was untimely and that his explanations for the untimely application were inadequate. The IJ also found that Alas was not a victim of past persecution and had not met his burden of showing persecution, a well-founded fear of persecution, or a clear probability of persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. Alas did not establish himself to be a member of a particular social group and his fear of harm was not centrally based upon an actual or implied protected ground. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Beltrand-Alas v. Holder" on Justia Law

Customs and Border Patrol agents stopped petitioner at a New Hampshire checkpoint. She failed to produce valid immigration documents and CBP charged her as a removable alien present in the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). More than a year later, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, claiming that, while living in Colombia, she was on a public bus that was attacked by the Colombian FARC guerillas, who killed five passengers. Petitioner claims to fear that harm to her and her family if she returns to Colombia. During one of several hearings, the IJ directed her to submit a declaration or any documentation detailing her entry into the U.S. and to request fingerprinting. The IJ granted a continuance of over a year. Both petitioner and her counsel failed to comply with any of the outstanding directives by the time for hearing on the merits. Counsel conceded that petitioner had not filed for asylum within the one-year time limit and provided no explanation as to why an exception might apply. The IJ dismissed her claims as abandoned, for failure to comply with outstanding orders. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. View "Gomez-Medina v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a father and children, natives of Honduras, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1991. The father, who had uncovered tax fraud as an auditor in Honduras, sought asylum in 1992, claiming death threats. DHS began removal proceedings in 2007. The IJ denied the application finding that petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution to qualify for asylum. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. View "Lobo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Ayala was born in 1957, shortly after Guatemala's president was assassinated. The decades that followed were tumultuous, with guerilla violence common until peace arrived in 1996. Her family suffered two deaths and two robberies. In 1993, Ayala fled to the U.S., leaving behind children, ages 10 and 14 and filed a petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In 2006, DHS charged her as removeable. An IJ found Ayala credible but denied her relief because she could not prove past persecution, establish a reasonable fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground, or meet the more difficult tests for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The BIA affirmed, rejecting her claim for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A) because Ayala was unable to establish that past persecution was or the persecution she fears will be on account of a legally protected ground. The First Circuit affirmed. Asylum claims based on perceived wealth because of a petitioner's connections to the U.S. have consistently been rejected. View "Ayala v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Portuguese national, was admitted into the U.S. in 1984 as a lawful permanent resident. Roughly a quarter-century later, Massachusetts authorities charged him with shoplifting and larceny, arising out of separate crimes allegedly committed at separate times and places. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the shoplifting charge and was fined $250. He pleaded guilty to the larceny charge and was sentenced to 18 months of probation. The shoplifting fine was never paid, but was vacated. DHS commenced removal proceedings based on convictions for two independent crimes of moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The IJ rejected petitioner's argument that he had not been "convicted," and ordered removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal. A "conviction" can occur if there is "a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court," 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), which occurred in this case, despite the fact that petitioner was never punished. View "Viveiros v. Holder" on Justia Law

Aponte, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the U.S. as a Lawful Permanent Resident in 1996. In 1999, she pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. After she sought to reenter in 2003, DHS charged Aponte as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Aponte conceded removability, but obtained a continuance to attempt to have her conviction expunged. After three years, she had not succeeded and, in 2007, the IJ ordered removal. Having received no brief, the BIA dismissed her appeal and, later, declined to reopen, finding insufficient proof of inadequate notice. On remand, Aponte claimed that her attorney before the IJ provided ineffective assistance. The BIA found that Aponte was not eligible for cancellation of removal because she did not establish seven years of continuous residence as she could not properly impute her father's residency; that she did not show prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection; and that she could not establish ineffective assistance because she had not demonstrated probability of prejudice. The First Circuit denied appeal with respect to eligibility for cancellation of removal, but remanded with respect to eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and ineffective assistance of counsel. .View "Aponte v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Moldova, was admitted to the U.S. in on a non-immigrant cultural exchange visa. 2006. Instead of departing, he applied for asylum, citing his Roma descent and his membership in Moldova's pro-democratic political party. An Immigration Judge found petitioner's hearing testimony generally credible, considered the most recent State Department country conditions report, but found that petitioner had not carried his burden of proving past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied an appeal. View "Gilca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Brazil, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994 with his wife. They had two children, both U.S. citizens, then separated. In 2006 petitioner kicked open the door to his wife’s house, broke some glass, and threw furniture. He was arrested and admitted to facts supporting a finding of malicious destruction of property (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 127), believing that doing so would not cause immigration problems. He was sentenced to and completed 11 months of probation and an anger management program. The Department of Homeland Security took him into custody and instituted removal. He applied for cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Immigration Judge denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded for consideration of additional evidence regarding his wife's mental health and ability to care for their children and whether petitioner could qualify as "a person of good moral character" for purposes of cancellation of removal. The IJ concluded that malicious destruction of property under Massachusetts law is a crime involving moral turpitude and that he was statutorily barred from eligibility for cancellation of removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. View "Da Silva Neto v. Holder, ." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Hong Kong, came to the U.S. in 1999 and overstayed his visa. In 2010, an immigration judge ordered him removed after determining that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had not maintained 10 years of continuous physical presence as required by section 240A(b)(1)(A)-(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act . He was five days short. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied his appeal, rejecting an argument that the notice to appear was defective and "stopped time" for purposes of the 10-year calculation.View "Cheung v. Holder" on Justia Law