Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Marilu Calderon-Uresti, a native of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 2011 after previously being returned to Mexico by immigration authorities. She sought permanent residency through Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, but her application was denied when she reached adulthood. In 2018, she was arrested for a misdemeanor DWI, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement served her with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Shortly after, she married a U.S. citizen and applied for cancellation of removal under two schemes: the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) “special rule cancellation” for battered spouses, and “regular rule cancellation.” She testified to an immigration judge (IJ) that her husband had physically and emotionally abused her, but she did not provide corroborating evidence such as police reports or hospital records.The Immigration Judge found Calderon-Uresti’s testimony credible but determined she was ineligible for VAWA special rule cancellation because she failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence of battery or extreme cruelty. The IJ also found her ineligible for regular rule cancellation due to not meeting the ten-year residency requirement. The IJ ordered her removal but granted voluntary departure. Calderon-Uresti appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing her credible testimony should suffice and that corroborating evidence was not reasonably available. The BIA dismissed her appeal, agreeing she had not met her burden for special rule cancellation and did not address her hardship claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court held that the BIA’s finding—that Calderon-Uresti failed to meet the statutory eligibility for VAWA special rule cancellation due to lack of corroborating evidence—was supported by substantial evidence. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to consider her regular rule cancellation arguments because she had not exhausted them administratively before the BIA. The petition for review was denied. View "Calderon-Uresti v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, the petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2022, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The judgment included a forfeiture order stating that at least $3,934,518 was obtained and laundered by the petitioner as a result of his participation in the conspiracy. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that the petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon because his offense involved more than $10,000.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner removable as charged, relying on the conviction records, including the forfeiture order. The petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge concluded he was ineligible due to the aggravated felony conviction. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioner argued that the forfeiture order did not meet the evidentiary standard required to establish that his conviction was an aggravated felony, as it did not specify the amount directly attributable to his conduct. The Board, applying the circumstance-specific approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder, found that the forfeiture order was sufficient to establish that the funds involved exceeded $10,000 and dismissed the appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision de novo. The court held that an unrebutted forfeiture order entered solely against an alien, finding a specific amount of laundered funds attributable to the alien’s conduct of conviction, can constitute clear and convincing evidence that the amount of funds required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) is met. The court denied the petition for review. View "Reyes v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan national was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in Illinois and, in 2004, was found removable from the United States based on that conviction. He was removed to Guatemala that year but later reentered the country illegally. In 2021, Illinois enacted a law allowing individuals to seek vacatur of convictions that could have immigration consequences. The petitioner sought and obtained vacatur of his possession conviction in December 2023, citing procedural and substantive deficiencies in the original proceedings.After the state court vacated his conviction, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals in January 2024, arguing that the vacatur eliminated the sole ground for his removability. The Board denied the motion, finding it untimely and concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing his rights. The Board also denied his motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decisions under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as the petitioner failed to show that he acted with reasonable diligence either after the Illinois law was enacted or after learning of his ability to seek vacatur. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for reconsideration, as the petitioner’s arguments were essentially the same as those previously rejected. The Fifth Circuit therefore denied both petitions for review. View "Rosa Arevalo v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, whose legal permanent resident status in the United States had been revoked, was previously removed from the country multiple times following a criminal conviction. In August 2023, he entered the United States from Mexico by bus, intentionally seeking arrest in order to challenge his prior deportation and potentially regain legal status. Upon arrival at the port of entry in El Paso, he bypassed a pedestrian turnstile, was quickly apprehended by Customs and Border Protection officers, and admitted his intent to be arrested. He was indicted for illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas conducted a jury trial. The defendant did not dispute the factual basis of his entry but argued that he was not “free from official restraint” and therefore had not “entered” the United States in the legal sense. He requested a jury instruction defining “official restraint,” which the district court denied, reasoning that the concept was not an additional element of the offense and that the pattern jury instructions sufficed. The jury found him guilty of illegal re-entry, and the court entered judgment for attempted illegal re-entry, sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in refusing the requested instruction. The Fifth Circuit held that while “freedom from official restraint” is part of the definition of entry for § 1326(a), the pattern jury instruction given was a correct statement of law and adequately covered the issues. The court found that the defendant was able to present his defense theory to the jury, and thus, the absence of the requested instruction did not constitute reversible error. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez-Adame" on Justia Law

Celia Ignacia Esquivel-Bataz, a Mexican citizen, was previously convicted of making a false statement to obtain credit and deported in 2012. In April 2025, she was found by ICE agents at an illegal gambling parlor in Houston. She was indicted for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). ICE lodged an immigration detainer against her, indicating that she would be taken into custody and removed to Mexico if released.A magistrate judge initially found that Esquivel-Bataz was not a flight risk and ordered her release on bond pending trial. The Government responded with an emergency motion to stay and revoke the release order, which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted. Esquivel-Bataz then moved for pretrial release, and the district court held an evidentiary hearing. After hearing testimony, including from an ICE officer about the detainer’s effect, the district court denied her motion, finding her to be a flight risk based on her criminal history, Mexican citizenship, prior deportation, and current unlawful presence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying pretrial release. The Fifth Circuit clarified that the district court did not treat the immigration detainer or potential deportation as flight risk per se, but rather considered the totality of circumstances, including individualized factors required by the Bail Reform Act. The order denying pretrial release was affirmed. View "United States v. Esquivel-Bataz" on Justia Law

A citizen of Mexico, who had been a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1982, was convicted twice for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—first in 2011 for shooting his ex-wife and again in 2018 for assaulting a roommate with a knife. These felony convictions led the Department of Homeland Security to initiate removal proceedings against him under Section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which concerns firearm offenses. An immigration judge ordered his removal after he completed his sentences, finding him ineligible for relief due to his convictions.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the removal order in 2020. The individual’s first petition for review to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was dismissed as untimely. In 2022, he filed his first motion to reopen or reconsider with the BIA, arguing that a Supreme Court decision, Borden v. United States, changed the legal landscape regarding his removability. The BIA denied this motion, finding Borden inapplicable because his removal was based on a firearm offense, not an aggravated felony, and that the motion was untimely. In 2024, he filed a second motion to reopen, again citing Borden and seeking equitable tolling of both the time and numerical limits on motions to reopen. The BIA denied this second motion, holding that the statutory limit of one motion to reopen applied and that equitable tolling did not extend to the numerical bar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial. The court held that the statutory “number bar” in the INA, which generally allows only one motion to reopen, is not subject to equitable tolling. The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, concluding that the BIA did not err in refusing to reopen the removal proceedings. View "Garcia Morin v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A native of Uzbekistan and citizen of Israel entered the United States on a visitor’s visa in 2009, married a U.S. citizen, and had two children who are U.S. citizens. After his visa expired, he was placed in removal proceedings, conceded removability, and was ordered removed. He sought to adjust his status based on marriage, but after divorcing in 2017, that petition was withdrawn. He then applied for cancellation of removal on two grounds: (1) that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children, and (2) that he was eligible for special cancellation under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) due to alleged battery or extreme cruelty by his ex-wife.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied both applications, finding his testimony credible but insufficient without corroborating evidence such as medical records for his daughter, proof of child support payments, or tax returns. The IJ also found that his ex-wife’s conduct did not rise to the level of battery or extreme cruelty required by statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that the evidence did not meet the statutory standards for either form of relief and that the lack of corroboration was fatal to his claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the application of legal standards to established facts as mixed questions of law and fact. The court concluded that the BIA correctly determined the petitioner failed to provide required corroborating evidence for hardship and that the ex-wife’s actions did not constitute battery or extreme cruelty under the statute. The petition for review was denied. View "Simantov v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Luis Alfredo Lezama-Ramirez, a noncitizen who had previously been removed from the United States, pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the country in violation of federal law. After his guilty plea, the Probation Office prepared a presentence report (PSR) that included a list of standard and special conditions for supervised release. At sentencing, Lezama-Ramirez’s counsel indicated there were no objections to the PSR, and the district court adopted it. The court imposed a one-year term of supervised release, referencing compliance with standard and special conditions, but did not read these conditions aloud. The written judgment later included the same conditions as those in the PSR.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana entered the judgment, and Lezama-Ramirez appealed, arguing that there were discrepancies between the oral pronouncement of supervised release conditions at sentencing and those listed in the written judgment. He specifically challenged the imposition of certain standard and special conditions that were not read aloud, as well as differences between the oral and written versions of two particular conditions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that because Lezama-Ramirez had notice of the supervised release conditions through the PSR and did not object at sentencing, there was no reversible error in imposing the conditions that were not read aloud. However, the court found that the written version of one special condition (Special Condition 2) imposed an additional reporting requirement not included in the oral pronouncement, which constituted an impermissible conflict. The Fifth Circuit vacated the imposition of Special Condition 2 and remanded for the district court to conform it to the oral pronouncement, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. View "United States v. Lezama-Ramirez" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, born in Mexico in 1976 to a U.S. citizen father and a Mexican citizen mother, sought recognition of U.S. citizenship based on his father’s physical presence in the United States prior to his birth. His father, born in Texas, had lived in the U.S. for a cumulative sixteen years, including seven years after turning fourteen. The plaintiff’s parents were unmarried at his birth but married in Texas the following year. In 2012, the plaintiff applied to the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) for a certificate of citizenship, submitting various documents to establish his father’s physical presence in the U.S. prior to his birth.USCIS denied the application in 2015, finding insufficient proof of the father’s physical presence. The plaintiff appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which dismissed the appeal in 2018. He then filed a timely motion to reconsider and reopen, submitting additional evidence, but the AAO denied this motion in September 2018. Nearly five years later, in August 2023, the plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), seeking a declaration of citizenship.The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the five-year statute of limitations in § 1503(a) was jurisdictional and had expired, starting from the AAO’s dismissal of the appeal rather than the denial of the motion to reopen. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the five-year time bar in § 1503(a) is not jurisdictional but a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. The court further held that a timely motion to reconsider or reopen extends the time to file suit, and since the plaintiff’s motion was timely, his suit was not time-barred. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sarabia v. Noem" on Justia Law

A Venezuelan citizen entered the United States in 2019 on a B-2 visitor visa and applied for asylum before his visa expired. He remained in the country after his visa lapsed, leading to removal proceedings. The petitioner claimed he feared persecution in Venezuela due to his political activities as an opponent of the ruling party, his membership in the Primero Justicia Party, and his activism against the Maduro regime. He recounted being shot by a paramilitary group known as the “colectivos” in 2015, receiving threats, and participating in numerous protests. He also described incidents involving tear gas at demonstrations and threats relayed through neighbors, but acknowledged periods of living unharmed in Venezuela and traveling freely between Venezuela and the United States.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner’s testimony credible but denied relief, concluding that the harms he experienced, individually and collectively, did not rise to the level of persecution required for asylum. The judge also found no well-founded fear of future persecution, noting the petitioner’s ability to travel and live in Venezuela without incident for extended periods. The judge further determined that the petitioner did not meet the higher standard for withholding of removal and failed to show a likelihood of torture necessary for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, agreeing that the petitioner had not suffered past persecution or established a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that he did not face a particularized risk of torture. The petitioner then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s findings. The court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection. View "Rubio v. Bondi" on Justia Law