Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Bathula and her husband, Reddy, citizens of India, separately applied for asylum, claiming that their family had been subjected to persecution at the hands of a local criminal group after Reddy testified against its members on trial for murder. The Department of Homeland Security denied the petitions. In removal proceedings, they together renewed their request for asylum and requested withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, then denied a request to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Seventh Circuit denied petitions for review, finding no evidence that would require a fact-finder to conclude that the petitioners were subjected to past persecution or that any harm was on account of a statutorily protected ground. They showed no prejudice from ineffective assistance. View "Bathula v. Holder" on Justia Law

FH-T joined the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in 1982 at age 15, while Eritrea and Ethiopia were engaged in a 30-year war. The EPLF refused to let him leave. For nine years he worked in communications and as a driver. He did not transport weapons. In 1994, the EPLF dissolved and became Eritrea’s only political party. FH-T was employed at a government-owned company, and, in 2005-2006, repeatedly expressed concerns about abuses of the compulsory National Service program. FH-T was imprisoned in a military prison camp for five months. After release, he remained under surveillance, was regularly interrogated, and received threats on his life. He fled Eritrea and sought asylum in the U.S. His father and sister were arrested when he left. An Immigration Judge denied FH-T’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1158. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on the basis that he had provided material support to the EPLF, classified as a “Tier III” terrorist organization, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). The Seventh Circuit denied review, rejecting challenges to the system and an argument that he was eligible for an exemption because he did not know that the EPLF was involved in the unlawful use of force; he did not exhaust this argument before the Board. View "F. H.-T. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Gao, from Fujian in southeastern China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2005 with the goal of earning money to send home to his family in China. Shortly after he arrived Gao’s wife (in China) gave birth to the couple’s second child, a daughter,and was sterilized. Gao sought asylum on the ground that his wife’s sterilization amounted to persecution of him.An IJ denied his petition and ordered him removed to China. The Board dismissed his appeal, reiterating its rule that spouses of persons subjected to forced sterilization no longer qualify automatically for asylum. One day after the applicable 90-day deadline, Gao moved to amend his asylum application to add a claim that he feared that he would be subjected to religious persecution if he was returned because he had connverted to Christianity. The Board denied this motion, concluding that Gao had not established changed country conditions necessary to excuse untimely filing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Gao v. Holder" on Justia Law

Almutairi served in the Kuwaiti Air Force in1990, when Iraq invaded. Almutairi joined a resistance group. Iraqi soldiers captured him and for nine days he was brutally tortured. Almutairi cracked under the pressure and brought the Iraqi soldiers to a house that he thought would be unoccupied. When the soldiers entered the house, they found and arrested a man. They released Almutairi, Days later the soldiers publicly executed the man from the house, along with three others. Almutairi fled the country, but he and his family returned, after the country’s liberation. Almutairi received threatening phone. Two years after the threats, after spending time in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, Almutairi came to the U.S. in 1994 on a nonimmigrant student visa. He ended his studies 10 years later. In 2006 he was served with a Notice to Appear for violating his visa. The following year, after his family had received another threatening phone call in Kuwait, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that the asylum application was untimely and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to deny withholding of relief. View "Almutairi v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1998, Zheng, under the legal age for marriage in China, became pregnant by her boyfriend, who also was under age. The government family planning officials took Zheng to a hospital, where she underwent an abortion. Zheng left China shortly thereafter, entered the U.S. illegally in 1999, married, and had two children. Zheng sought asylum in 2006, claiming she had undergone a forced abortion and feared that, if returned to China, she would be sterilized for having had two children. In 2008 an immigration judge denied Zheng’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that she had missed the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), and did not qualify for any exception, and, in the alternative that even if the birth of Zheng’s second child was a circumstance that allowed for an exception to the deadline, asylum would have been denied because the birth of two children in the U.S. does not give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and ordered her removed. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Akram, her mother, and her younger sister were citizens of Pakistan. Akram’s mother married Siddique, a U.S. citizen, in 2005 when Akram was 18 years old. The marriage occurred outside the U.S.; Siddique requested K visas so that the women could wait for permanent visas in the U.S. and filed I-130 petitions to make them eligible for immigrant visas as “immediate relatives” of a citizen. 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Akram’s mother and sister received K-3 visas and their I-130 Petitions were granted. Akram’s request for a K visa was granted, but her I-130 petition was denied because of inconsistent definitions, such that she was too old to be Siddique’s “child,” even though she was still her mother’s “minor child.” Akram’s mother became a lawful permanent resident and filed her own I-130 alien relative petition on Akram’s behalf in 2008, which is pending. Akram remained in the U.S. after her K-4 visa expired, and removal proceedings began in 2009. An Immigration Judge held that 8 C.F.R. 245.1(i) bars Akram from adjusting status by any means other than through Siddique. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act as "Byzantine” and concluding that the regulation at issue conflicts with congressional intent. View "Akram v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1996, Singh fled India to escape police officers allegedly trying to kill him. In 1997 he was charged as removeable. He sought asylum based on his religion and political beliefs and withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In 2009 an Immigration Judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the agency’s conclusions about past persecution “problematic,” but agreeing that Singh does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

The defendant’s sentence, under the heading “additional imprisonment terms,” states that the “defendant is to be turned over to the proper immigration authorities for deportation proceedings upon completion of term of incarceration. If deported, defendant is to remain outside the United States and is not to return without the written consent of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” The Seventh Circuit struck the provision as unauthorized. Only an immigration judge may order removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(a)(3), unless the prosecutor and immigration officials request that the district judge hold a removal hearing, a request not made in this case. A district judge may order, as a condition of supervised release, that a defendant be turned over to immigration officials, but if there is no order of supervised release, as here, imposition of such a condition is ultra vires. The court noted that there is no need for the “added measure” in this case, because the defendant is an aggravated felon. An aggravated felon who is an alien is removable upon the completion of his prison sentence, removal proceedings must be begun before the end of his prison term, and he must be detained until completion, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(B), 1228(a)(1)-(2), (3)(A). View "United States v. Zamudio" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. in 2001, at the age of 18, and applied for asylum on the ground that if returned to China she would be punished for having refused to marry a Communist Party official. Her application for asylum was denied and in 2004 she was ordered removed. She stayed and applied to reopen her removal proceeding in order to apply for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground of changed conditions in China. In 2011 she had converted to Christianity, and she argued that if removed to China her religious beliefs would compel her to join a Christian church not recognized as legitimate by the Chinese government and to proselytize, which the government forbids, and as a result she would face persecution. The BIA rejected her argument, reasoning that her personal circumstances changed, as opposed to country conditions. The Seventh Circuit vacated, noting evidence of religious persecution in China. View "Shu Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Since entering the U.S. from Mexico in 1993, Garcia-Segura has had arrests. He was first removed in 2003 after serving two years in jail for possessing cocaine. Less than two months later, he was arrested in the U.S. for delivering cocaine to an undercover officer. After serving part of his nine-year prison sentence, he was removed a second time in 2007 but returned within three days. In 2009, he encountered immigration officials while incarcerated on charges of possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was charged with unauthorized presence in the U.S. after removal, 18 U.S.C. 1326(a). He pleaded guilty and sought a 19-month reduction to account for time he served in county jail after immigration officials learned of his illegal presence but before he was charged. He argued that, had the government charged him when immigration officials first discovered him, he would have received concurrent sentences. The government responded that concurrent sentences would have been inappropriate because the state crimes were unrelated to the illegal-reentry and that his recidivism merited a more severe sentence. The district court imposed a sentence of 90 months’ imprisonment, within the guideline range of 77 to 96 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Segura" on Justia Law