Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner challenged the BIA's order denying his motion to terminate deportation proceedings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that petitioner's conviction of witness tampering in violation of Nebraska Statute 28-919(1)(c), (d), constituted an aggravated felony because it was an offense relating to the obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S). View "Armenta-Lagunas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Cafe and its owner and manager for willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that plaintiffs, as aliens without work authorization, lacked standing to sue. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the FLSA did not allow employers to exploit any employee's immigration status or to profit from hiring unauthorized aliens in violation of federal law. View "Lucas, et al. v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his claim for asylum based on the untimeliness of his application. The court concluded that the BIA did not commit legal error because it did not require petitioner to show both "changed circumstances" and "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse his untimeliness. Instead, the BIA independently analyzed both exceptions and agreed with the IJ that petitioner met neither of them. Further, the issue of whether a "material" change in circumstances affected petitioner's eligibility for asylum was not a reviewable question of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the application for asylum was untimely. View "Goromou v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Tunisia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order finding him removable because his July 2010 conviction for violating a Kansas drug paraphernalia statute was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA correctly concluded that a conviction for violating the Kansas paraphernalia statute was, categorically, related to a controlled substance within the meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and use of the modified categorical approach as urged by petitioner was unnecessary; the court rejected petitioner's premise that Matter of Paulus was controlling agency authority the BIA arbitrarily ignored; and it was not error to admit and rely on evidence outside the record of conviction where the BIA concluded that the personal use exception did not apply. View "Mellouli v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Senegalese citizen, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the denial of his petition for adjustment of status. The government initiated removal proceedings against petitioner after he failed to comply with the conditions of his non-immigrant student visa. The IJ denied petitioner's request for relief, finding that he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because he provided material support to a terrorism organization while in Senegal. The IJ further held that even if petitioner was eligible for relief, the IJ would deny relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA affirmed and petitioner sought review of that decision. The court denied the petition for review because it did not have jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment. View "Diallo v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his petition to defer removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and dismissal of his appeal. To the extent petitioner challenged the legal standard used by the BIA, the court rejected that challenge on the merits. Petitioner's remaining challenges, including his factual dispute with the BIA's application of the "willful blindness" standard, were foreclosed by the criminal alien bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) and were beyond the court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Gallimore v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, married Mexican citizens, petitioned for review of the denial of their applications for withholding of removal. After seeing petitioners' fathers associating with Evangelical Christians, Catholic villagers began threatening and attacking members of their families in the streets of the village. The court concluded that petitioners have not proven that the conditions in the village rose to the level of persecution, even when the conditions there were viewed together with the street attacks; petitioners could avoid any future persecution in Mexico by relocating to Oaxaca City; and petitioners' relocation to Oaxaca City to avoid possible persecution would be reasonable where petitioners' arguments regarding their lack of savings and the limited employment opportunities in Oaxaca City were unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Alavez-Hernandez, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA affirming the IJ's denial of her claims for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the IJ correctly determined that petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal where petitioner failed to establish that it would not be reasonable for her to relocate to another part of the country; substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner did not suffer past persecution based on the incidents she experienced; substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner did not show a clear probability of future persecution based on a protected ground should she be returned to Colombia; and petitioner failed to establish that she was entitled to relief under the CAT because her CAT claim relied on the same evidence as her withholding of removal claim. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gutierrez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners Martinez and Garcia sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal of the IJ's order of removal after the IJ denied their motions to suppress evidence uncovered by a warrantless entry. In the order, the IJ conflated Martinez's testimony with that of his son. Both the IJ and the BIA found the officers' warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances solely based on the son's yell to Garcia "not to open the door" because immigration officers were outside. Assuming petitioners' accounts of the ICE officers' conduct were true, any Fourth Amendment violations they suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in a civil removal proceeding. Although both the IJ and BIA clearly erred in their treatment of Martinez's and his son's testimonies, the error did not necessitate remand because the error was not prejudicial. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's burden-shifting argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252 because they failed to raise this issue at the administrative level. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Carcamo, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a refugee immigrant, sued defendants, seeking a judgment declaring that the USCIS acted unlawfully by withholding adjudication on his application without periodically reviewing it, an injunction ordering USCIS to adjudicate his application within 30 days, and other relief. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the delay in adjudicating plaintiff's application was neither unlawful nor unreasonable as a matter of law. After intervening action by the Secretary, USCIS approved plaintiff's application for adjustment to permanent resident status. Because the case is now moot, the court dismissed the appeal, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Ayyoubi v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law