Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, applied for withholding of removal, asserting that he suffered past persecution and faced a clear probability of future persecution in Guatemala on account of his political opinion and his membership in a particular group. Despite finding Petitioner credible, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s findings and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, finding that Petitioner failed to establish that any harm he suffered or would likely suffer in the future was serious enough to constitute persecution and related to a statutorily protected ground. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s findings. View "Hernandez-Lima v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Eritrea, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that she was persecuted in Eritrea because of her Pentecostal faith. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Petitioner’s removal to Eritrea. Although the IJ refrained from making an explicit adverse credibility finding regarding Petitioner’s credibility, the judge concluded that Petitioner failed to remedy credibility problems in her testimony with persuasive corroborating evidence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner filed a petition for review, asserting, inter alia, that the IJ and BIA erred in finding material inconsistencies in the evidence she presented and in relying on evidence outside the record. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) a reasonable fact-finder would not be compelled on this record to conclude that Petitioner met her burden to prove past persecution; and (2) Petitioner’s claims for other forms of relief were unavailing. View "Bahta v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, who was born and raised in Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. The Government initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner for entering the United States without a valid entry document. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that the threats of a police officer that shot and killed Petitioner’s father constituted persecution based on the social group of Petitioner’s family and demonstrated the likelihood that Petitioner would be tortured or killed if he returned to Guatemala. The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of proving he is a refugee. View "Marin-Portillo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner argued that she had suffered past persecution due to her prior attendance and had an objectively well-founded fear of future persecution due to her prior attendance at an underground Christian church in China. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that she had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s decision to affirm the IJ’s denial of Petitioner’s asylum application was supported by substantial evidence. View "Qin v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability and indicated her intent to seek asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner argued that she had suffered past persecution in El Salvador and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the particular social group she defined as “Salvadoran women in intimate relationships with partners who view them as property.” The IJ denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish that her proposed social group shared immutable characteristics and had social distinction. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Petitioner failed to show either immutability or social distinction. View "Vega-Ayala v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States and was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming both past persecution and fear of future persecution due to his anti-gang political opinion and his membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that there was no error in the BIA’s determinations and that the BIA's determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record. View "Alvizures-Gomes v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
When Thomas was a child, he was lawfully admitted to the United States for six months, but he and his parents remained in the country beyond that date. Thomas’s mother later became a naturalized United States citizen and, three days later, Thomas turned eighteen years old. Thomas did not apply to become a lawful permanent resident thereafter but, instead continued living in the United States without a lawful admission for permanent residence. Thomas was subsequently convicted in a Massachusetts state court for armed robbery. An Immigration Judge ordered Thomas removed, finding that Thomas was removable as an alien who had been convicted of an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Thomas filed a petition for review, arguing that he satisfied the applicable statutory criteria for obtaining derivative citizenship in consequence of his mother’s naturalization. The First Circuit denied the petition, holding that Thomas did not satisfy the criteria set forth in the derivative citizenship statute that was in effect at the time he was still a minor. View "Thomas v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native of El Salvador with multiple convictions, was placed in removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s application for Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) special rule cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. A Massachusetts district court later vacated Petitioner’s convictions, and the charges were subsequently dismissed for failure to prosecute. Thereafter, the BIA vacated its prior decision and remanded the case to the IJ for reconsideration. The IJ acknowledged that Petitioner was eligible for relief from removal under NACARA but exercised its discretion by declining to grant relief. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner did not deserve a favorable exercise of discretion. View "Lima v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
In 2000, Chen entered the U.S. illegally. Luo followed in 2002, with a visitor's visa, which he overstayed. They married 2008. They became members of the China Democracy Party Foundation, a group committed to political reform in China. In removal proceedings, an IJ found Chen removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), as present in the U.S. without having been lawfully admitted or paroled, and found Luo removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), for remaining in the U.S. longer than permitted. They unsuccessfully sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture, arguing that, if repatriated, they would be subject to persecution (or worse) because of their political activities in the U.S. The IJ did not find Chen credible and did not find that the petitioners had carried their burden of proving their claims. After the BIA upheld those denials, they moved to reopen, rather than seeking judicial review. After the motion was denied, three years passed before they filed a second motion to reopen, arguing changed country circumstances. The BIA denied the motion as time-and-number barred and found that the "changed country circumstances" exception did not apply. The First Circuit denied a petition for review, noting that motions to reopen are disfavored because of the compelling public interest in finality and the expeditious processing of immigration proceedings. View "Chen v. Lynch" on Justia Law

by
The Pandits, citizens of India, have lived in the U.S. for 21 years. They reside in Massachusetts with their 19-year-old daughter, Pooja, who is a U.S. citizen. In 2009, DHS began removal proceedings on the grounds that they had arrived without a valid entry document and were present in the U.S. without being "admitted," 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). The Pandits sought cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), arguing that they had been physically present for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding; were of good moral character during such period; had not been convicted of a qualifying offense; and that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their daughter. They argued that that Pooja could not live in the U.S. without her parents and would be forced to move to India if they were deported, where she "would face difficulties acclimating to the different educational and cultural system." In 2013, the IJ denied their application, finding they had not shown "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" and that, even if they met all of the statutory criteria, they would not "merit a favorable exercise of discretion" because they had "engaged in fraud repeatedly in order to gain immigration benefits." Each had entered into (separate) fraudulent marriages, and a friend had filed a fraudulent labor certification on their behalf. The First Circuit affirmed the BIA’s refusal to re-open proceedings for consideration of Pooja’s medical problems. View "Pandit v. Lynch" on Justia Law