Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's conclusion that petitioner had not established a lawful admission and that, even if he had, it would not matter because expiration of his temporary residency canceled any effect that the admission would have had. The court concluded that petitioner failed to carry his burden of showing that he was admitted to the United States in 1993. Therefore, the court affirmed the BIA's ruling that petitioner did not demonstrate that he was lawfully admitted and is therefore ineligible for an adjustment of status. Furthermore, the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's motion to reopen based on the ineffective assistance of prior counsel because petitioner has not shown that his evidence was so overwhelming that the BIA’s continued disbelief in his factual assertions was arbitrary, capricious, or utterly unreasonable. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review because the BIA did not err in rejecting petitioner's initial appeal or his motion to reopen. View "Gomez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, argues that his asylum status was not terminated when he adjusted to legal permanent resident (LPR) status and that, if it was, the IJ erred in denying his subsequent reapplication for asylum. When affirming the IJ's assertion that petitioner’s LPR status terminated his asylum status, and as a result, his deportation proceedings could commence without termination of his asylum status, the BIA relied on its precedential decision, C-J-H-. The court concluded that, because the BIA failed to address and interpret relevant provisions of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), including section 1158(c), 8 U.S.C. 1158(c), it did not exercise its Chevron discretion in C-J-H-. Accordingly, the court remanded for the BIA to interpret the relevant INA provisions in the first instance. View "Ali v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for illegal reentry in the United States as a previously removed alien. The court rejected defendant's claim that the IJ’s failure to make an express determination of voluntariness constituted a due process violation and concluded that such failure did not render her proceedings fundamentally unfair. Further, the court rejected defendant's contention that an ICE agent's misinformation about the possibility of obtaining relief rendered her waiver unknowing and involuntary because the court's precedent precludes defendant from demonstrating plain error. Therefore, defendant has not carried her burden of showing that the agent’s advice rendered her proceedings fundamentally unfair. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cordova-Soto" on Justia Law