Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Bulgarian citizen, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's adverse credibility finding and denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to remand where he did not provide any evidence supporting his motion nor did he even explain why he believed that 8 U.S.C. 208.6 had been violated; the IJ acted within his discretion when he admitted a letter summarizing a State Department investigation into evidence and relied on it to find that the subpoenas petitioner submitted were fraudulent; the adverse credibility finding based on the fraudulent subpoenas was supported by substantial evidence; because petitioner's claim was based on his mistreatment by the Bulgarian police, the fact that the subpoenas were fraudulent goes to the heart of his claim of persecution; petitioner's testimony was not credible and he did not present other evidence that met his burden to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if sent back to Bulgaria; and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Angov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's final order of removal. The court concluded that neither the IJ nor the BIA abused their discretion in holding that petitioner had waived her application for relief and protection where she did not file her application for relief by the extended due date for her applications set by the IJ. Further, petitioner abandoned her application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H) and she was ineligible for such a waiver where she was being deported because she was convicted of falsifying documents, not because she was inadmissible at entry. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Taggar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Russian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition, concluding that petitioner met his burden of presenting evidence that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to control the nongovernmental actors who persecuted him because he was a homosexual; in order to obtain relief petitioner requested, he was not required to demonstrate that the Russian government sponsored or condoned the persecution of homosexuals or was unwilling for that reason to control persecution; and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for removal because his conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(J). The language in the indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing order was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was convicted of an offense coming within the definition of "aggravated felony." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the BIA did not err in determining that the Arizona conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. View "Murillo-Prado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Pakistan, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from a final order of removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), because they remained in the United States for longer than permitted. The order also held that the wife was removeable for misrepresenting a material fact, and declared that the wife had filed a frivolous asylum application. Where, as here, the sole witness refused to answer questions, DHS could not satisfy its burden in the absence of any substantive evidence based solely upon the adverse inference drawn from silence. Therefore, the court concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing the grounds for termination of asylum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of petitioners' remaining arguments. The court granted the petition for review. View "Urooj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner was denied due process when the government was allowed to introduce its forensic report on a medical document without prior notice and by refusing a continuance to allow petitioner to investigate the report; the court concluded that petitioner had suffered past persecution; but the court rejected petitioner's contention that the government improperly disclosed information contained in his asylum application. The court granted the petition, remanding to allow petitioner a reasonable opportunity to investigate the forensic report on the medical report and to present additional evidence. View "Bondarenko v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner was charged with seventeen counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon children in violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code. The court denied the petition, holding that petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) because petitioner's state crime of conviction, California Penal Code section 288(c)(1), was a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) where it posed a substantial risk of the use of physical force. View "Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Arizona’s 2010 Senate Bill 1070 includes various immigration-related provisions, passed in response to the growing presence of unauthorized aliens in Arizona. The stated purpose of S.B. 1070 is “to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and government agencies in Arizona” by creating “a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defin[ing] the immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona’s state and local law enforcement officers.” Section 13-2929 of the Bill attempts to criminalize transporting, concealing, harboring, or attempting to transport, conceal, or harbor an unauthorized alien under certain circumstances and to criminalize inducing or encouraging an unauthorized alien to come to or reside in Arizona. The district court entered a preliminary injunction with respect to 13-2929 on the basis that it is preempted by federal law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the statute, as written, is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause because one of its key elements—being “in violation of a criminal offense”—is unintelligible. The provision is also preempted by federal law and invalid under the Supremacy Clause. View "Valle del Sol, Inc. v. State of Arizona" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner did not present evidence of imputed political opinion that would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude that petitioner was subject to persecution because of imputed political beliefs; the reports submitted by petitioner did not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government had acquiesced in torture against women, whether as a result of corruption or through cooperation with criminals; and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" a protected ground and that petitioner failed to establish the state action necessary for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Milian v. Holder" on Justia Law