Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and adjustment of status. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) over petitioner's challenge to the discretionary determination finding him ineligible for withholding because the crime underlying his removeability was a particularly serious crime; the court upheld the revocation of petitioner's asylee status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a)(2), also due to his conviction; and the court denied petitioner's constitutional challenge to the provisions precluding adjustment of status after his asylee status was revoked. View "Pechenkov v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged a Justice Department regulation, 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B), governing the process by which religious workers could apply for adjustment of status pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1255(a). The court held that the regulation did not bar religious workers from applying for adjustment of status. The regulation has only the practical effect of making it necessary for religious employers to file visa petitions earlier. Therefore, there was no violation of plaintiffs' due process rights. View "Ruiz-Diaz, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal. The BIA vacated the decision of the IJ granting petitioner protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and cancellation of removal. Petitioner argued that the BIA acted beyond the scope of its authority under 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3) by reviewing the IJ's findings under a de novo rather than clear error standard and improperly engaging in its own factfinding. The court agreed that the BIA committed legal error in vacating the IJ's decision with respect to the CAT protection claim, and therefore granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. As to cancellation of removal, the BIA applied the correct standard of review and the court denied the petition to that extent. View "Ridore v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became permanent residents and immigrated to the United States. However, due to visa quotas and a serious backlog, by the time plaintiffs received their family-sponsored visas, their children were no longer eligible to accompany them as recipients of derivative visas. At issue was whether these children were entitled to relief under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), 8 U.S.C. 1153(h). The court concluded that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously granted automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. Accordingly, the BIA's interpretation of the statute conflicted with the plain language of the CSPA and was not entitled to deference. View "De Osorio, et al v. Scharfen, et al" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's order granting plaintiffs partial injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from detaining any individual "based on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person was unlawfully present within the United States." Plaintiffs contended that defendants have a "custom, policy and practice of racial profiling and practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers pretextually and without individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome, stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped," under the auspices of enforcing immigration laws. While defendants raised a number of issues on appeal, the court only addressed the order granting "partial injunctive relief." Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of removal. Petitioner's attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an IJ because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. The IJ found that petitioner could have learned of his attorney's suspension as much as eleven days before the hearing and concluded that petitioner was not diligent in bringing his attorney's suspension. The IJ denied petitioner's motion to continue, proceeded with the hearing with petitioner unrepresented by counsel, and denied petitioner's application for asylum. The court concluded that petitioner's right to be represented by retained counsel was violated and that a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceedings was not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Montes-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation and defendant subsequently appealed. At issue was whether the government could deport an illegal alien who could provide exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the answer was self-evident pursuant to United States v. Ramirez-Lopez. On remand, the district judge shall decide whether to dismiss the charges against defendant with prejudice, as a consequence of the government's conduct. Should the district court permit a retrial, it shall determine whether the eight other deported witnesses were interviewed by the government agents, and if so, what they each said. The government shall provide testimony or declarations from border agents as to whether they interviewed the remaining members of the group and whether they took notes or otherwise recorded the statements. Defendant must also be allowed to present the videotape of Witness Garcia-Garcia's testimony, the transcript or both, as well as any evidence of what the other eight witnesses said. Defendant shall also be entitled to a missing-witness instruction as Witness Garcia-Garcia and, depending on what the district court finds, to the other eight deported witnesses as well. View "United States v. Leal-Del Carmen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of an order of removal. Petitioner argued that a finding that he engaged in illegal activity could not properly be made by officers at the border and that he was entitled to counsel until a final administrative determination had been made by an IJ and the BIA. The court held that the border officers were permitted to treat petitioner as an applicant for admission based on their conclusion that he had engaged in illegal activity, without waiting for a final administrative determination. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that his statements admitting the attempt to smuggle his niece across the border were coerced and used against him in violation of due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gonzaga-Ortega, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Each of the two plaintiffs in this case had resided for several years in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a territory of the United States, when federal immigration law replaced CNMI immigration law there in 2009. At issue was whether the time plaintiffs resided in the CNMI before 2009 transition date counted toward the five-year residence requirement for naturalization. The court held that, under the clear language of the controlling statute, the district court correctly concluded that the time did not count. View "Eche, et al v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law