Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court reversed the BIA's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded for the BIA to determine whether petitioner had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a political opinion or whether he was more likely than not to be persecuted on account of a political opinion. The court denied the petition with regards to petitioner's claims for relief under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show that he was more likely than not to be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. Accordingly, the court granted and remanded in part and denied in part. View "Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding that his conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11359 was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance. The court concluded that petitioner failed to met his burden of proving a "realistic probability" that Cailfornia would apply section 11359 to conduct not related to a controlled substance. Just as section 11359 was categorically a controlled substance offense for sentencing purposes, it was categorically a crime relating to a controlled substance for immigration purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Macias-Carreon v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b) for being an alien found in the United States after removal. The court held that the district court correctly rejected defendant's collateral challenge to the validity of the removal order underlying his section 1326(b) sentencing enhancement; rejected defendant's arguments that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting documents from his immigration file; and rejected defendant's claims that the district court erred procedurally and substantively in imposing a sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Rojas-Pedroza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a United States citizen, filed a visa petition on behalf of her husband, a citizen of Afghanistan, but the visa was denied under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). Section 1182(a)(3)(B) is a broad provision that excludes aliens on a variety of terrorism-related grounds. The court concluded that the Government's citation to section 1182(a)(3)(B), in the absence of any allegations of proscribed conduct, was not a facially legitimate reason to deny the visa. Because the Government had not offered a facially legitimate reason, plaintiff's claims for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to adjudicate the visa application and for a declaratory judgment survived dismissal. Accordingly, the court also concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge 8 U.S.C. 1182(b)(3) as it had been applied to her. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Din v. Kerry" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Panama, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that he was not eligible for relief pursuant to former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), because he was an aggravated felon, who filed his application for relief after November 29, 1990. The court held that the aggravated felony bar applied to petitioner's attempt to seek section 212(c) relief and denied the petition for review. View "Lawrence, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident charged with removal based on his alleged conviction of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), petitioned for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a CIMT. The Attorney General held in Matter of Silva-Trevino that an IJ could rely on evidence outside the record of conviction to determine whether a petitioner had been "convicted of" a CIMT. The court joined the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that Silva-Trevino was wrongly decided. The court held that a CIMT was a generic crime whose description was complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" was an element of the crime. Because it was an element of the generic crime, an IJ was limited to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien had been "convicted of" a CIMT. In this case, the court concluded that the IJ and BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was "convicted of" a "crime involving moral turpitude." Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Olivas-Motta v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former member of the Mexican military, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition with respect to petitioner's past persecution claim and remanded to the BIA to determine whether certain post-military incidents were attributable to the Los Zetas drug cartel, where petitioner assisted in transferring the arrestees, and whether the Mexican government was able to control Los Zetas as relevant to those in petitioner's particular social group. The BIA did not sufficiently consider Mexico's ability to control Los Zetas, so the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings on petitioner's claim of future persecution. Because the court rejected the BIA's finding on the lack of a causal nexus and remanded on the issue of the government's ability to control Los Zetas, the court also granted the petition on the withholding of removal claim and remanded to the BIA to reconsider petitioner's application; and the court remanded for the BIA to consider whether any torture petitioner was likely to endure if returned to Mexico would be with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. View "Tapia Madrigal v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b) and returning him to Mexico. The BIA concluded that the social group petitioner proposed, framed in the terms presented to the BIA - insulin-dependent persons with mental-health problems, including posttraumatic stress and depressive disorders - was not "particular" as the statute required. The BIA also concluded that the record did not show a clear probability of persecution because of membership in a particular social group. The court concluded that the BIA correctly found that petitioner failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group or that he would be persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) seeking a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen of the United States. Plaintiff was born in the Philippine Islands and his father was a U.S. citizen who had lived his entire life in the Philippines. Plaintiff argued that, as a child born out of wedlock, he was covered by a special provision of the Nationality Act of 1940, Pub. L. No. 76-853, section 201(e), that made section 201(e) applicable retroactively to children born out of wedlock before the Act's effective date. The court concluded that the 1940 Act was not the law in effect at the time of plaintiff's birth in 1931, so he must establish that the Act applied retroactively to individuals before its effective date. The court did not think that the provisions of the Act on which defendant relied reflected a legislative intention that they should apply retroactively. Further, plaintiff conceded that he could not meet the condition precedent to acquiring citizenship, that his paternity have been established by legitimation or adjudication during minority. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment dismissal of his action. View "Friend v. Holder" on Justia Law