Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA agreed with the IJ's finding that petitioner failed to sustain her burden to prove past or future persecution in light of the fact that she failed to provide credible testimony to support her claim. The court affirmed in light of the numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in petitioner's claim. The court concluded that it was proper use of demeanor to buttress an analysis that, as the BIA explained, satisfied the IJ’s obligation to provide specific and cogent reasons based on the record. Because petitioner failed to establish that she was a refugee under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), the IJ and BIA denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The court concluded that there was no error. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review and the motion to remand. View "Rodriguez-Mercado v. Lynch" on Justia Law

GMM appealed the district court's decision to uphold a financial decision and order of the DOL ARB that found GMM violated several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., relating to the H-1B visa program. GMM also appealed the award of damages and interest to some GMM workers. The court found that the Secretary’s expansive understanding of his investigatory authority is inconsistent with the plain language and structure of section 1182(n). The court concluded that the Secretary’s authority to conduct an initial investigation under section 1182(n)(2)(A) is based upon the Secretary finding reasonable cause to believe the employer’s specific misconduct as alleged in the complaint violates the INA. That reasonable-cause finding limits the scope of the initial investigation. In this case, the Secretary’s current standard practice has the practical effect of converting every aggrieved-party complaint into a comprehensive compliance review without the procedural safeguards of section 1182(n)(2)(G)(i). Because the ARB’s findings of violations and the resulting awards were based entirely on the Secretary’s unauthorized investigation of matters other than the allegation GMM penalized the complainant for quitting before her contract ran out, the awards cannot stand. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Greater MO Medical P.C.P. v. Perez" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Gambia, petitioned for review of the BIA's orders affirming the IJ's denial of their applications for waiver of inadmissibility and denying their motions to remand. The court concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of waiver of inadmissibility and dismissed as to this issue. The court concluded that, because petitioners engaged in an extensive fraudulent scheme, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence they presented was not credible and thus did not establish a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum. Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the information contained in the letters at issue was not previously unavailable. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions. View "Njie v. Lynch" on Justia Law

USCIS determined that because Juan Reyes-Soto had violated South Carolina Code 16-23-410, South Carolina’s “Pointing firearm at another person” statute, he had committed an aggravated felony and thus could not establish “good moral character.” The district court affirmed. The court held that section 16-23-410 cannot be violated without the “threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” Thus, violation of section 16-23-410 is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). Because Reyes-Soto has an aggravated felony conviction, he is not considered to be “a person of good moral character” as required by section 1427(a), and the district court properly denied his petition for naturalization. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Reyes-Soto v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican native and citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to establish the continuous presence requirement and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. In this case, petitioner's absence from the United States for a total of 182 days exceeded the 180 day statutory limit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Torres-Balderas v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native and citizen of India, sought review of the USCIS revocation of an I-140 petition and denial of his I-485 adjustment-of-status application. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether USCIS failed to comply with disclosure requirements under regulation 8 C.F.R. 103.2(b)(16). The court also found that plaintiff is not statutorily eligible to adjust status where plaintiff could not port his I-140 because the I-140 was not valid to begin with: USCIS found numerous petition deficiencies in its investigation of the employer's fraud. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal. View "Rajasekaran v. Hazuda" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Kenyan citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's decision that petitioner had waived his application to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resident and denial of his request for a continuance. In this case, the IJ explained to petitioner that in order to proceed, petitioner would have to pay a filing fee, get fingerprinted, submit an affidavit of support, and bring his wife to testify on his behalf at his next hearing. When petitioner showed up to his hearing ten months later, he had failed to do these things. The court exercised its discretion under 8 U.S.C. 1252 and denied the petition for review, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Choge v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner claimed that the IJ and the BIA failed to consider evidence of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship his children would suffer if he were removed from the United States. The court concluded that petitioner's challenge to the agency’s weighing of the evidence in support of his claim for cancellation of removal is outside the court's jurisdiction to review. The court concluded, though the agency’s consideration of the particular hardship factors that petitioner believed decisive may have been perfunctory, that is insufficient to establish legal or constitutional error. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Lemuz-Hernandez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2011, Singh entered the U.S. through Texas, without a valid entry document, violating 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Singh is a Sikh and a member of the Shirmoani Akali Dal Amritsar (Mann Party). Detained by DHS, Singh asserted he feared persecution by the rival India Congress Party if returned to India. Singh stated that members of the Congress Party had twice beaten him for refusing to switch parties. The officer found Singh had “a credible fear of persecution” and referred Singh’s application for further consideration. Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. An IJ continued Singh’s removal hearing to permit Singh to obtain new counsel. Singh’s retained counsel did not attend the rescheduled hearing, instead sending an unprepared associate. The IJ chastised counsel, but granted another continuance. At the rescheduled hearing Singh testified through an interpreter and provided documents to support his request for asylum. The IJ denied Singh’s application, finding Singh “not credible” because his testimony contradicted information he gave at his interview; he was evasive during cross-examination. The IJ alternatively found that, even if credible, Singh’s accounts of minor beatings and short detentions did “not rise to the level of persecution.” The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied relief, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance. View "Singh v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Muiruri, a native of Kenya, overstayed his student visa. Immigration officials apprehended him. In a sworn statement, Muiruri admitted to falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with two counts of removability: overstaying his visa, INA 237(a)(1)(C)(I), and falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen, INA 237(a)(3)(D). He applied for adjustment-of-status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. A month before his removal hearing, Muiruri filed a “Motion to Suppress,” arguing he had been illegally searched and seized, and his sworn statement coerced, and a lack of sufficient evidence for the false-representation charge. Two weeks later, the government submitted “to be considered by the Immigration Court at [Muiruri’s] hearing” I-9 forms and an employment application. In each, Muiruri checked the box indicating U.S. citizenship. A week before the removal hearing the immigration judge denied the Motion to Suppress and found a violation of INA 237(a)(3)(D). The BIA affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review, View "Muiruri v. Lynch" on Justia Law