Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for asylum. At issue was whether petitioner demonstrated "changed circumstances" that justified the untimely filing of his asylum application. The court granted the petition and held that the significance of the changes in conditions in India while petitioner was in the United States demonstrated "changed circumstances" and that the time period of two months, from the time petitioner learned of the changed circumstances and the time he filed for asylum, was reasonable.

Petitioner filed for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1) where petitioner entered the country in 2002 and therefore cannot satisfy the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement. At issue was whether petitioner's mother's physical presence in 1993 could be imputed to petitioner. The court denied the petition for review and held that imputation of petitioner's mother's presence did not apply where, under the circumstances, Congress intended the same text in the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which held that imputation did not apply, and 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1) to impart the same statutory immigration scheme.

Plaintiffs sued defendant, Clearwire US LLC, alleging that defendant's early termination fee ("ETF")constituted an unlawful penalty and that the provisions in defendant's service agreement permitted defendant to charge customers an ETF if service was terminated before the end of the fixed contract term. At issue was whether the fees that an internet and telephone service provider charged to customers who cancel service before the expiration of a fixed-term contract were alternative performance provisions or liquidated damages. The court held that the answer to this issue was unclear and therefore certified this question to the Washington Supreme Court.

Petitioner appealed his removal order where petitioner was deemed ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had committed an aggravated felony. At issue was whether certain procedures were necessary in Casas bond hearings to comport with due process. The court held that federal district courts had habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to review Casas bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error, that given the substantial liberty interests at stake in Casas bond hearings, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention was justified, and that the immigration court was required to make a contemporaneous record of Casas hearings.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico with lawful permanent resident status in the United States, petitioned for review of a final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") where petitioner had pled guilty to violating Revised Code of Washington section 9A.44.089 ("state statute"), child molestation in the third degree. At issue was whether a felony conviction for child molestation in the third degree under the state statute constituted a crime of child abuse within the meaning of 8 U.S.C 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) ("federal statute"). The court held that petitioner's conviction under the state statute was categorically a crime of child abuse where the state statute met the mens rea requirement of the federal statute which required at least a criminally negligent act and the actus reus requirement of the federal statute which required an act that constituted maltreatment of a child or impairment of a child's physical or mental well-being.

Petitioner filed for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. At issue was whether petitioner's motion for a stay of removal should be granted on its merits and under the court's clarification of the standards for stays of removal in light of Nken v. Holder. The court held that petitioner's request for a stay, pending review of the BIA's decision, was granted where petitioner had demonstrated that irreparable harm was probable absent a stay, that he had a substantial case on the merits, and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in his favor.