Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of Tanzania, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for adjustment of status. The court concluded that, although the IJ did misquote Form I-9, the entirety of his analysis shows he was properly analyzing the key legal issue: whether petitioner intended to represent himself as a citizen or a national. Further, substantial evidence supports the IJ's finding that petitioner falsely represented himself to be a citizen. The court also concluded that petitioner is not eligible for waiver of his ineligibility and the IJ did not violate petitioner's right to due process when he admitted evidence of petitioner's false representation on the I-9 Form. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Godfrey v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, appealed the BIA's denial of his claim for withholding of removal based on harm he suffered at the hands of a drug cartel in Mexico when he was twelve years old. The court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner failed to establish a causal nexus between the persecution he suffered and his membership in the proposed particular social group: “escapee Mexican child laborers.” Accordingly, because the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's application for withholding of removal, the court denied the petition for review. View "Cano v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Tanzania, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his motion to reopen. The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because his newly submitted evidence was previously discoverable. The BIA noted that the "new" documents petitioner submitted - including his marriage license from 2003, rental agreement from 2006, anniversary cards, sales receipts, tax returns, and photos - predated the March 2012 hearing. Further, petitioner conceded that he was never able to retrieve these documents from his attorney but was able to submit different supporting documents to the BIA. Because, the court believed that the BIA's explanation for its decision was rational and in accordance with the record, the court denied the petition for review. View "Makundi v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Nicaragua, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of asylum, denial of withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he should not be returned to Nicaragua because his brother was brutally murdered by local police and returning to Nicaragua would place him in grave danger from persecution by those responsible for his brother's death. The court concluded that petitioner's fear of persecution is speculative, even if he increased his public accusation of the police, and that petitioner's evidence of Nicaraguan human-rights practices do not compel a contrary conclusion. Further, the BIA properly rejected petitioner's claims for withholding of removal and withholding under the CAT because petitioner failed to satisfy the legal requirements of asylum and has presented no alternative factual basis for relief under the CAT. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Castillo-Gutierrez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

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