Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was arrested and charged with removability on the basis that he had remained in the United States beyond the six months permitted by his visa. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that certain documents were obtained as the result of an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. An immigration judge denied the motion to suppress, concluding that Petitioner did not present a prima facie case that the search and seizure leading to his arrest amounted to an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that, like the BIA, the Court need not decide whether there was any Fourth Amendment violation because, even if there were, the violation was not egregious. View "Corado-Arriaza v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Here the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services approved an I-130 “immediate relative” visa petition based on an the marriage of Petitioner, a Chinese national, to a United States citizen. In a parallel removal proceeding, the immigration court inquired into the bona fides of the anchoring marriage. The immigration judge (IJ) found that the marriage was a sham, rendering Petitioner’s ineligible to adjust her status. The IJ then ordered Petitioner’s removal to China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding (1) the IJ had jurisdiction to examine the bona fides of Petitioner’s marriage; and (2) the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the “sham marriage” conclusion reached by the IJ and the BIA. View "Chan v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In Castaneda v. Souza, the First Circuit divided evenly over the question of whether the “when…released” clause in 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1) limits the scope of section 1226(c)(2). The result of the deadlock was the affirmance of the district court judgments finding unreasonable the government’s years-long delay in detaining two specific petitioners. While the issue concerning the interpretation of section 1226(c) was on appeal, the district court issued two orders. The first issued certified a class of present and future detainees who had committed or would commit serious crimes. In the second order (“the remedial order”) the district court granted summary judgment to the class and issued declaratory and injunctive relief, ordering the defendants to cease and desist subjecting current and future class members - aliens not detained within forty-eight hours of release from custody - to mandatory detention. The First Circuit held in abeyance the government’s appeal of the remedial order pending its decision in Castaneda. On appeal, the First Circuit vacated the remedial order’s grant of summary judgment, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief, holding that a class-wide bright line rule of a mere forty-eight hours, with no mention of an alien’s potential culpability for delay, is inconsistent with the reasoning and logic of the Castaneda opinions. Remanded. View "Gordon v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application for a good-faith-marriage waiver of the joint-filing requirement for a Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence (Form I-751 waiver) but made a series of representations to advance her application. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied Petitioner’s Form I-751 waiver application. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for review and granted Petitioner voluntary departure, finding that Petitioner’s various misrepresentations to USCIS undermined the credibility of her testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing with the IJ that, in light of Petitioner’s misrepresentations, the evidence was insufficient to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that she had entered into a good-faith marriage. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that nothing Petitioner argued on appeal compelled the Court to reverse the BIA’s decision. View "Quezada-Caraballo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ugandan national, was subjected to removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, concluding that no changed or extraordinary circumstances could justify Petitioner’s thirteen-year delay in seeking asylum and that Petitioner failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Thereafter, Petitioner moved to reopen removal proceedings based on newly discovered evidence. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, concluding that Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements for reopening. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA did not commit an error of law or exercise its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational manner. View "Bbale v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Colombia, was charged as removable. In response, Petitioner sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims. Thereafter, Petitioner voluntarily returned to Colombia. Petitioner later re-entered the United States and filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen, finding that Petitioner had failed to establish an exception to the time limitations on motions to reopen. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s asylum claim, and therefore, Petitioner’s counterpart claim for withholding also necessarily failed; and (2) Petitioner abandoned her CAT claim. View "Giraldo-Pabon v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Peruvian national, became a lawful conditional resident of the United States in 2001 at age eleven. The government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner in 2007. After a serious of mistakes on the part of two lawyers, Petitioner failed to timely appear at his removal proceeding, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of removal in absentia. Petitioner moved to reopen his immigration case, explaining that his first two attorneys had provided ineffective assistance of counsel and that this deficient representation had prevented him from attaining legal permanent resident status. The IJ agreed that Petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel but that Petitioner’s failure to be appear could not be attributed to his lawyers’ inadequacies. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as the failures of Petitioner’s lawyers, taken together, constituted exceptional circumstances sufficient to grant Petitioner’s motion. View "Murillo-Robles v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). In his asylum application, Petitioner claimed that he had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution because of his work as a grassroots leader in a Haitian political party. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s claims for relief, finding that Petitioner’s testimony lacked credibility and, thus, Petitioner was unable to establish eligibility for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the agency’s asylum determination; and (2) Petitioner waived his withholding of removal and CAT claims. View "Legal v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was charged as removable based on allegations that Petitioner had misrepresented himself as a Japanese citizen and national. An Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removability. After a flurry of procedural activity, a second IJ found that Petitioner was removable as charged. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Petitioner procured an immigration benefit through willful misrepresentation. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Petitioner deliberately and voluntarily used a fraudulent Japanese passport to gain entry into the United States. View "Li v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Appellant, a native of Cameroon, pleaded guilty to filing a false healthcare claim, larceny, and attempted larceny, in violation of Massachusetts state law. Appellant paid the full restitution amount and his case was dismissed. In an effort to be granted naturalization, Appellant attempted to revise his criminal record. Although Appellant successfully had his sentence “clarified” to establish the amount of loss to the victim of the crime, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied Appellant’s renewed application for naturalization on the grounds that Appellant had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was therefore ineligible for naturalization. Appellant filed a petition for judicial review, arguing that it had been established that the amount of loss to the victim of the crime of fraud or deceit was less than $10,000, and therefore, his petition for naturalization was improperly denied. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, concluding that the totality of the circumstances supported USCIS’s finding that the amount of loss to the victim exceeded $10,000. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the USCIS properly discounted “Appellant’s attempts at revisionist history” and properly denied naturalization. View "Nanje v. Chaves" on Justia Law