Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

In 2015, two Ecuadorian citizens, Mayancela and Santander, along with Mayancela's minor children, entered the United States without admission or parole. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged them with removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). They did not contest their removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) in the Boston Immigration Court denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denials.The IJ found that while both petitioners testified credibly, they did not meet the burden of proof for their claims. The IJ concluded that Mayancela did not establish that her persecution was on account of her membership in the particular social groups "Ecuadorian women" and "Ecuadorian females," attributing the harm to her cousin's violent behavior and substance abuse. The IJ also found that Santander's asylum application was untimely and that the government had shown a fundamental change in Ecuador's conditions, rebutting any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the evidence did not establish the requisite nexus for Mayancela's claims and that the government had sufficiently demonstrated changed conditions in Ecuador for Santander.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the agency failed to conduct the required mixed-motivation nexus analysis for Mayancela's asylum claim and vacated the agency's decision regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the agency's decision denying Santander's asylum and withholding of removal claims, as well as the denial of CAT protection for both petitioners, finding that the record did not compel a contrary conclusion. View "Mayancela Guaman v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Guatemala, have resided in Massachusetts for over twenty years and have four U.S. citizen children. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued Notices to Appear, charging them with removability. They applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, citing their son L.C.'s medical and educational needs. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application, finding they did not meet the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement due to insufficient corroborating evidence about L.C.'s situation in Guatemala. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and later denied their first motion to reopen based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Petitioners filed a second motion to reopen, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by their previous attorney, who failed to submit crucial evidence about L.C.'s educational needs. They provided new evidence, including country conditions in Guatemala and additional information about their children's medical and educational challenges. The BIA denied this motion, stating that Petitioners had not shown that their counsel's performance was so deficient that they suffered prejudice and that they had not established a prima facie case for cancellation of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA provided insufficient explanation for its ruling, making it impossible to review the legal bases for its conclusions. The court noted that the BIA did not adequately address whether the failure to submit corroborating evidence about L.C.'s educational needs constituted ineffective assistance of counsel or whether Petitioners had established a prima facie case for relief. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chanchavac Garcia v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A couple from Guatemala, Gustavo Evelio Mendez Nolasco and Blanca America Niz Mendez, entered the United States without inspection in 1981 and 2001, respectively. They married in 2004 and have four children, three of whom are U.S. citizens and one a Legal Permanent Resident. They own a landscaping business and a home in Massachusetts. They applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that their children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they were deported to Guatemala.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications, finding that they did not demonstrate good moral character due to undisclosed criminal histories and that their children would not face the requisite level of hardship. The IJ considered factors such as the children's limited Spanish skills, the family's financial assets, and the conditions in Guatemala but concluded that the hardships were not substantially beyond what is typically expected upon removal.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the IJ's assessment of the hardship factors and finding no need to address the good moral character determination. The BIA highlighted the children's limited Spanish skills, the couple's assets, and the potential for their oldest child to remain in the U.S. and petition for their legal status adjustment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found no legal error in the agency's application of the hardship standard. The court noted that the BIA properly considered the relevant factors and evaluated them in the aggregate. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the agency's decision was consistent with its precedent and that the couple did not meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. View "Mendez Nolasco v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a husband and wife from Guatemala, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. They argued that their removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen children. The IJ found that the petitioners did not meet this hardship requirement, despite finding them otherwise eligible for cancellation of removal. The IJ's decision was based on the conclusion that the children would not suffer the requisite level of hardship if the family relocated to Guatemala.The IJ's decision was appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's findings. The BIA agreed with the IJ that the petitioners had not demonstrated that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children. The BIA reviewed the IJ's factual findings for clear error and found none, particularly regarding the health and well-being of the petitioners' son, A.B.M., who had experienced past trauma and had ongoing health issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA had legally erred by failing to consider key evidence, specifically a psychological report detailing the mental health status of A.B.M. The court held that the BIA must consider all relevant evidence in the record when reviewing the IJ's findings for clear error. The First Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to adequately consider the full record, including the psychological report, in its determination. View "Blanco Contreras v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national filed two petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first petition challenges the BIA's January 2024 decision upholding the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition challenges the BIA's March 2024 denial of his motion to reopen his administrative proceedings to seek a continuance or administrative closure while his U visa petition is pending.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner in May 2022 for entering the United States without inspection. An immigration court found him removable and designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the CAT. The IJ denied his applications, finding that his proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of harm if removed to El Salvador. The BIA vacated and remanded for further findings, but the IJ again denied relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA may have endorsed the IJ's use of an improper "ocular visibility" standard in evaluating the social distinction of the petitioner's proposed PSG. The court also noted ambiguity in the BIA's analysis regarding the scope of the petitioner's PSG. Consequently, the court granted the first petition, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed the second petition as moot. The petitioner may renew his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection on remand. View "Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Walter Aceituno, a Guatemalan citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. In 2014, he pled guilty to drug-trafficking charges after being arrested in a sting operation involving the purchase of cocaine. His attorneys informed him that he would be deported as a result of his guilty plea, but did not explicitly state that he would be permanently barred from reentering the United States. Aceituno was deported in 2015 and later illegally reentered the U.S. in 2019, leading to further legal issues.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted Aceituno's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, allowing him to withdraw his 2014 guilty plea. The district court found that Aceituno's attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the permanent reentry bar, and that Aceituno acted reasonably in not seeking earlier relief due to his ongoing efforts to reunite with his family through various legal means.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Aceituno's attorneys met the requirements set forth in Padilla v. Kentucky by informing him of the risk of deportation. The court found that the district court erred in concluding that the attorneys were required to inform Aceituno of the permanent reentry bar. Additionally, the appellate court determined that Aceituno's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable and that the equities did not justify the issuance of the writ. The court emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the lack of compelling circumstances to warrant coram nobis relief. The writ was quashed, and the petition was dismissed. View "Aceituno v. United States" on Justia Law

A petitioner, Kathya Roxana Duarte De Martinez, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Duarte argued that her removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her minor son, A.M., who has an intellectual disability. She claimed that A.M. would be deprived of educational services in El Salvador due to his inability to learn Spanish, which would severely impact his development and social functioning.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially heard the case, finding Duarte and her husband credible but ultimately concluding that the hardship to A.M. and his brother did not meet the high statutory standard. The IJ noted that A.M. could attend a special education program in El Salvador, which was affordable for the family. Duarte appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision, stating that the availability of special education services in El Salvador, even if inferior, did not constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The BIA also noted that language barriers are common hardships and found no clear error in the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA failed to consider A.M.'s specific circumstances, including his severe language impairment and the impact of his disabilities on his ability to learn Spanish. The court held that the agency did not undertake the required individualized inquiry into whether A.M. would be deprived of all schooling or an opportunity to obtain any education. The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Duarte De Martinez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves Lecy Frederico Rosa, his wife Maristela Gomes-De Souza Frederico, and their minor child, M.E.F., who entered the United States without inspection near El Paso, Texas, on January 27, 2022. They were apprehended by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents and placed in removal proceedings with notices to appear (NTAs) dated February 3, 2022. The NTAs alleged that the petitioners were citizens of Brazil and charged them with being removable as aliens present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The petitioners denied these charges.An immigration judge (IJ) ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to submit evidence of the petitioners' alienage. DHS provided "EARM Summaries" for each petitioner, which included information such as names, dates of birth, physical descriptions, and encounters with CBP. The petitioners moved to terminate their removal proceedings, arguing that the EARM Summaries were insufficient and unreliable evidence of alienage. The IJ denied the motion, finding that DHS had established alienage by "clear and convincing" evidence, and ordered the removal of all three petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the correct standard of proof was "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence." The BIA rejected this argument, concluding that the two standards were identical and that the EARM Summaries met the required standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and determined that the BIA applied an incorrect standard of proof. The court held that "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" is a more demanding standard than "clear and convincing evidence." Consequently, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the correct standard of proof. View "Rosa v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge by eighteen states and other plaintiffs against the enforcement of Executive Order No. 14,160, which limits the recognition of U.S. citizenship for certain individuals born in the United States. The Executive Order specifies that individuals born to mothers unlawfully present in the U.S. or temporarily present mothers, where the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, will not be recognized as U.S. citizens. The plaintiffs argue that this order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the Executive Order. The court found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest favored the injunction. The court issued a "universal" preliminary injunction, applying nationwide, to prevent the enforcement of the Executive Order.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of the preliminary injunction. The court denied the stay, concluding that the government failed to make a "strong showing" that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, particularly regarding the plaintiffs' standing and the lawfulness of the Executive Order. The court also found that the government did not meet its burden on the other factors required for a stay, including irreparable harm and public interest. The court upheld the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction, noting that the government did not adequately address the necessity of such broad relief to prevent harm to the plaintiffs. View "State of New Jersey v. Trump" on Justia Law

Franciele dos Reis Olimpio Alves, a native and citizen of Brazil, along with her husband and child, arrived in the United States in 2021 and were placed in removal proceedings. They conceded removability, and Olimpio filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing abuse by her ex-partner in Brazil. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her request for relief, concluding that even if the abuse amounted to persecution, it was not on account of a protected ground.Olimpio appealed the IJ's denial of her asylum claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Olimpio's ex-partner's motivation to harm her was based on personal issues regarding their relationship, not on account of her membership in a particular social group. Olimpio, her husband, and child then petitioned for review of the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that it reviews both the IJ's and the BIA's decisions as a unit when the BIA adopts portions of the IJ's findings while adding its own analysis. The court upheld the agency's factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard, which requires upholding the findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise.The court held that Olimpio did not demonstrate the requisite nexus between her claimed persecution and a protected ground. The agency reasonably concluded that her ex-partner's actions were motivated by personal issues rather than her membership in the proposed social group of "Brazilian women who are victims of domestic violence." Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Sanches Alves v. Bondi" on Justia Law