Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Muhammad Masood, a licensed physician from Pakistan, came to the United States in 2018 on a non-immigrant visa to work as an unpaid medical researcher. In 2019, he became radicalized by Islamic extremist content and planned to join ISIS. In March 2020, he was arrested at the Minneapolis airport with plans to travel to ISIS-controlled territory. A search revealed military and medical supplies, computers, and digital storage devices containing extremist propaganda. Masood pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Masood to 216 months imprisonment, varying downward from the statutory maximum of 240 months. Masood appealed, arguing procedural errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and alleged violations of his due process rights and right to allocution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in applying the terrorism enhancement, as the evidence supported that Masood's offense was intended to promote terrorism. The court also found that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Additionally, the court determined there was no violation of Rule 32(i) or the Due Process Clause, as Masood and his counsel were given opportunities to argue and allocute before the final sentence was imposed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Masood" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Mexico, Lilia Salinas, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007, was convicted in North Dakota state court in 2011 for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. She received a suspended sentence of 360 days’ imprisonment. In 2021, she was convicted again in North Dakota state court for two counts of aggravated assault of a victim under 12 years of age, receiving a 10-year sentence with one year suspended. Based on these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her in 2022, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled substance violation and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge (IJ) found Salinas removable under both charges, applying the categorical approach to determine that her marijuana conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense under federal law. The IJ compared the North Dakota definition of marijuana at the time of her conviction with the federal definition in effect at that time, concluding they were substantially similar. The IJ also pretermitted her application for cancellation of removal, as her 2011 conviction stopped the clock on her period of continuous residence, making her ineligible for relief.Salinas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ should have compared the state statute to the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the appropriate comparison was with the federal definition at the time of conviction and that the state and federal definitions were a categorical match.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court held that the proper comparison for determining removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is between the state statute at the time of conviction and the federal Controlled Substances Act in effect at that time. The court also rejected Salinas’s argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana was overbroad compared to the federal definition. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Salinas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Donglan Xia, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her adopted nephew, Tian "Tim" Xia, who was born in China and entered the U.S. on a temporary visitor visa in 2011. Tim's parents relinquished their parental rights, and Xia adopted him in 2012. Xia filed the I-130 petition in 2018 to classify Tim as an immediate relative for preferential immigration status. USCIS denied the petition, stating Xia did not prove Tim's adoption fell outside the Hague Adoption Convention, that Tim did not enter the U.S. for adoption, or that Tim had compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Xia's appeal, agreeing with USCIS that Xia failed to show Tim's adoption was outside the Hague Adoption Convention and that Tim had not established compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption. The BIA noted Tim's activities in the U.S. but concluded they did not demonstrate habitual residence. Xia sought judicial review, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found the BIA's decision lacked sufficient reasoning for meaningful judicial review. The court noted the BIA did not explain which specific facts and circumstances it considered or how they negated Tim's documented connections to the U.S. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, requiring a more detailed explanation of the BIA's decision regarding Tim's habitual residence and ties to the U.S. View "Xia v. Scott" on Justia Law

Aziz El Manyary, a Moroccan citizen, entered the U.S. in 2006 on a K-1 visa and married a U.S. citizen. He applied to adjust his status but failed to attend a USCIS interview, leading to the denial of his petition. Subsequently, USCIS initiated removal proceedings, and an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him removed in absentia when he failed to appear at a hearing. Seven years later, El Manyary filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, which was denied as untimely by both the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Five years later, he filed a second motion to reopen, which the BIA also denied as untimely.The IJ denied El Manyary's first motion to reopen, citing untimeliness and lack of diligence. The BIA affirmed this decision. El Manyary's second motion to reopen was also denied by the BIA, which found it untimely and declined to toll the deadline due to lack of diligence. The BIA rejected his argument of lack of notice, noting that he had received proper notice of his hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and denied El Manyary's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on untimeliness and lack of notice. The court also found that the BIA's decision not to reopen the case sua sponte was discretionary and not subject to judicial review. The petition for review was denied, and the BIA's decision was upheld. View "Manyary v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The Ferchichi family, natives and citizens of Algeria, sought asylum in the United States due to their son T.F.'s severe spina bifida condition. After being denied adequate medical treatment in Algeria, they raised funds and traveled to the U.S. for T.F.'s surgery. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2009, claiming persecution based on T.F.'s disability and fear of future persecution due to their public criticism of the Algerian medical system.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their claims in 2011, finding that the lack of treatment was due to Algeria's inadequate healthcare system and not persecution based on T.F.'s condition. The IJ also found no evidence of future persecution, noting that their family members in Algeria had not been harmed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision in 2022, agreeing that the refusal to treat T.F. was due to the government's desire to avoid international treatment costs and not persecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the BIA's decision, finding substantial evidence that the lack of medical care was due to Algeria's healthcare inadequacies and not persecution. The court also agreed that the Ferchichis did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, as their family members in Algeria had not been harmed and the country condition reports did not directly link to their situation. Consequently, the court denied the Ferchichis' petition for review. View "Ferchichi v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, part of the former Yugoslavia, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's finding that petitioner was ineligible for relief from removal because he failed to prove he was not an alien who committed, assisted, or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings under color of law of any foreign nation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(iii). The IJ found petitioner removable because, at the time of his admittance and adjustment of status, he concealed that he had served in the Army of the Serb Republic, Vojska Republika Srpske (VRS). The court explained that DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was removable because he was inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for willful misrepresentation of a material fact, and thus the issue was whether he was eligible for waiver relief from that removal under section 1227(a)(1)(H). Because petitioner concedes that he was removable for willful misrepresentation and DHS's evidence indicates that he may have participated or assisted in extrajudicial killings at Srebrenica in July, 1995, the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to grant petitioner's request for voluntary departure. View "Maric v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA applied the proper de novo standard for reviewing the IJ's finding that petitioner had not demonstrated an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution; substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution and future persecution; substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum; and thus petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, III" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenged the denial of his motion to reopen an order of removal in absentia when he failed to appear for a removal hearing in an immigration court. The court concluded that petitioner failed to develop an argument explaining why his failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C). Assuming for the sake of analysis that petitioner's alleged absence from the United States could be an exceptional circumstance, the court concluded that the Board reasonably determined that petitioner was in the United States when the Department filed the Notice to Appear to initiate the removal proceedings, and the Board gave reasonable weight to the fact that petitioner's counsel verified the accuracy of the address and made no objection to the immigration court's jurisdiction. View "Alvarado-Arenas v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States and sentenced to 51 months in prison. The court concluded that the occupant of the apartment where defendant was found voluntarily consented to entry; articulable facts warranted the agents' lawful protective sweep where the agents knew that defendant had a prior conviction for aggravated assault on a police officer and that he may be present in the apartment; the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom; and defendant's requests for suppression of all evidence was without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ortega-Montalvo" on Justia Law