Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on the IJ's finding of numerous discrepancies including petitioner's evasiveness and non-responsive explanations, and lack of corroborating evidence. Further, the BIA's decision that petitioner was not eligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence. Because the court upheld the agency's adverse credibility finding, petitioner could not prevail on his challenges to the IJ and BIA. Petitioner's asylum and withholding claims likewise failed, as they rested on his discredited testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "An v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the the BIA's order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Determining that it had jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, the court concluded that the IJ did not commit procedural error in excluding the testimony of petitioner's son and daughter where the testimony was cumulative and unnecessary. The court also concluded that the court need not consider whether the IJ erred in not qualifying more of petitioner's expert's testimony because petitioner was unable to show prejudice. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny petitioner relief based on her prior sham marriage. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Zeah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife sought review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner's first argument on appeal regarding the BIA's failure to determine his nationality because it had been waived; the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his status as a Palestinian refugee, or in the alternative, his Palestinian nationality, was supported by substantial evidence; the court rejected petitioner's argument that he was entitled to asylum because, as a stateless person, no government would accept him; the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) required a stateless person to show the same well-founded fear of persecution as an individual with a nationality; the decision to deny asylum was supported by substantial evidence and the evidence in the administrative record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder would be forced to conclude otherwise; because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily could not meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal; and, because petitioner relied on the same evidence to support his claim of protection under the CAT, he failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured in any of the countries designated for removal. The court rejected petitioner's due process arguments because they directly mirror his substantive issues. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agha, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former special forces member of the El Salvador military, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him withholding of removal. The court concluded that the IJ did not deprive petitioner of a fundamentally fair hearing where the IJ provided him an opportunity to examine the documents at issue and respond to them. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to show that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that he would be persecuted in El Salvador where, among other things, petitioner and his family were not harmed based on his former military membership. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Constanza-Martinez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Jordanian citizen, appealed the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for adjustment of status. Petitioner contended that the unpublished BIA decision in his case was not entitled to Chevron deference. The court need not address whether Chevron deference was required because the BIA decision could be affirmed under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The court concluded that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to adjustment of status was a persuasive interpretation of section 245(i) and was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. 245.10. Under the deference afforded by Skidmore and Auer v. Robbins, the court affirmed the judgment of the BIA and denied the petition for review. View "Mansour v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that while in China, government family-planning officials forced her to abort her second pregnancy under China's one-child policy. The court held that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The IJ engaged in impermissible speculation and improperly relied on a minor inconsistency. As such, the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner did not establish past persecution. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zhang, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. The court concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in concluding that defendant was inadmissible because substantial evidence supported the finding that he has admitted to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, a law of the United States related to controlled substances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from an IJ's order denying their motion to suppress evidence and terminate deportation proceedings. Petitioners argued that they alleged sufficient facts before the IJ to demonstrate that the entry and search of their home was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation such that the statements and passports they provided during the search should be suppressed. The court held that, even if petitioners have alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, they did not allege a prima facie case of egregiousness to warrant exclusion of evidence in the deportation context. Further, there was no Fifth Amendment violation for the failure to conduct a hearing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Fernandez, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Indonesia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning and concluded that the harassment and intimidation petitioner experienced because of his religion and ethnicity did not rise to the level of persecution because they lacked severity or they were isolated acts of criminal conduct or lawlessness. Further, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear or that he faced a clear probability of future persecution warranting relief if returned to Indonesia. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Further, petitioner failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Supangat v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his family, Kenyan citizens, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying them asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Mungiki defectors constituted a "particular social group" and that the record compelled the conclusion that the Kenyan government was unwilling or unable to control the Mungiki. Therefore, the BIA erred in denying petitioner's claims on the merits. Further, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to remand to allow petitioner's sister to testify in person because her testimony, if credited, was likely to change the IJ's credibility findings and thus change the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Gathungu, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law