Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

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