Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Samir Fernandes Baptista, a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Massachusetts of unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal. During his removal proceedings, the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that this state crime is categorically an aggravated felony attempted theft offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Consequently, the immigration judge ordered Baptista removed for committing an aggravated felony after admission, and the BIA upheld this order.Baptista appealed the BIA's decision, arguing that his conviction does not qualify as an attempted theft offense under the INA. He contended that under Massachusetts law, a defendant could be convicted of unarmed assault by stealing property with the victim’s fraudulently obtained consent, which would make the state offense broader than the generic federal theft offense that requires the taking to be against the victim’s will. Baptista also argued that his conviction cannot qualify as an attempt because it does not require a defendant to commit an overt act toward a taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA's legal conclusion de novo. The court concluded that the Massachusetts unarmed assault statute requires the taking to be against the victim’s will and involves force and violence, making it a categorical match to a generic federal theft offense. Additionally, the court found that the statute requires an overt act constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the theft, thus qualifying as an attempted theft offense under the INA. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Baptista’s petition for review. View "Baptista v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Adolfo Acevedo Ibarra, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally and used the identity of a U.S. citizen, Raul Cabrera, to obtain various documents and benefits fraudulently. He was detained in 2014 for using a fraudulent Social Security number and later pleaded guilty to illegal entry. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, and Ibarra admitted to the allegations and agreed he was removable. He sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause hardship to his four U.S.-citizen children. However, the immigration judge denied his application, citing his lack of good moral character due to his fraudulent activities.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge's decision, agreeing that Ibarra's significant negative criminal history, including fraud, outweighed any evidence of good character. Ibarra then petitioned for review, claiming that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated during the removal hearing when his attorney's attempts to assert the privilege against self-incrimination were overruled.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's finding that Ibarra lacked good moral character. The court noted that Ibarra's fraudulent activities, even without a conviction, justified the finding under the catchall provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). The court also rejected Ibarra's Fifth Amendment claim, stating that the privilege against self-incrimination must be asserted by the individual, not their attorney, and that Ibarra continued to testify without asserting the privilege himself.The Fourth Circuit denied Ibarra's petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision to deny cancellation of removal based on the substantial evidence of his lack of good moral character and rejecting his Fifth Amendment claims. View "Ibarra v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Ansar Hassen Hussen, an Ethiopian citizen, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa in January 2014 and overstayed. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution in Ethiopia due to his political opinion and ethnicity. An immigration judge (IJ) found his account implausible and denied his application. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that material aspects of Hussen's story did not add up. Hussen filed a petition for review, No. 23-1047.While the first petition was pending, Hussen married a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 application for an immigrant visa on his behalf. Hussen then filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his proceedings to seek an adjustment of status based on his marriage. The BIA denied the motion, concluding that Hussen's evidence was insufficient to prove the bona fides of his marriage. Hussen filed a second petition for review, No. 23-2197.While the second petition was pending, Hussen filed another motion with the BIA to reopen the proceedings and reconsider its denial of his earlier motion. He provided additional evidence, but the BIA denied the motion, and Hussen filed a third petition for review, No. 24-1257.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied Hussen's first petition, No. 23-1047, upholding the BIA's adverse credibility determination. The court granted Hussen's second petition, No. 23-2197, vacated the BIA's order denying the motion to reopen, and remanded for further proceedings, finding that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard. The court denied Hussen's third petition, No. 24-1257, as moot in light of the relief granted on the second petition. View "Hussen v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Eugenia Bautista Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order of removal based on her 2011 conviction for petit larceny under section 18.2-96 of the Virginia Code. The Board held that petit larceny categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering Chavez ineligible for cancellation of removal. Chavez argued that a defendant in Virginia could be convicted of larceny for taking property that he or she sincerely but unreasonably believed was abandoned, which falls short of the requisite mental state for a crime involving moral turpitude. She also contended that petit larceny for taking property of de minimis value does not constitute sufficiently reprehensible conduct to make out a crime involving moral turpitude.The Immigration Judge ruled for the government, reasoning that he was required to find that petit larceny was a crime involving moral turpitude under the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez v. Holder. Chavez appealed to the Board, arguing that Virginia petit larceny did not require a culpable mental state and did not involve reprehensible conduct. The Board dismissed Chavez’s appeal, concluding that the offense required a culpable mental state and involved reprehensible conduct. Chavez then moved the Board to reconsider its decision, but a temporary Board member denied her motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Chavez’s petition. The court held that Virginia petit larceny is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, which satisfies the culpable mental state requirement. The court also found that the offense involves reprehensible conduct, regardless of the value of the property taken. Additionally, the court rejected Chavez’s challenge to the authority of the temporary Board member who decided her reconsideration motion, citing its previous decision in Salomon-Guillen v. Garland. View "Chavez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Bryan Alexis Molina-Diaz and his wife Cony Vanessa Pasqual de Molina fled El Salvador after witnessing the murder of Cony's cousin, Jose. Bryan applied for asylum and withholding of removal, but an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed. Bryan then moved for reconsideration and to reopen based on his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance, but the Board denied both motions.The IJ found Bryan and Cony's testimony credible but concluded that Bryan failed to show that the threats he received were on account of his family relationship rather than because he witnessed the murder. The IJ also found that Bryan did not demonstrate that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control the non-state actors (MS-13 gang members) who threatened him. The Board affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Bryan did not establish the necessary nexus for asylum and that the government control requirement was not met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Bryan argued that the requirement to show the home government’s inability or unwillingness to control non-state persecutors should be abandoned following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Alternatively, he argued that the IJ and Board conflated inability with unwillingness and ignored evidence about conditions in El Salvador. The Fourth Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that binding precedent requires showing the home government’s inability or unwillingness to control non-state persecutors. The court found that the IJ and Board did not conflate inability with unwillingness and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of government control. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit denied the petitions for review. View "Molina-Diaz v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Javier Chavez Dominguez, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in North Carolina in August 2022 on state drug charges. After confirming his identity and criminal history, he was charged with Illegal Reentry after Removal Subsequent to Conviction for Aggravated Felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Dominguez pleaded guilty and received a 48-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. He appealed the sentence, presenting new arguments not raised in the district court.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina handled the initial proceedings. Dominguez faced both state and federal charges, first pleading guilty to state charges and receiving a 10 to 21-month sentence. Upon release, he was detained by ICE and later charged federally. He pleaded guilty to the federal charge without filing any motions and did not object to the presentence investigation report (PSR), which calculated his advisory Guidelines range as 30 to 37 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Dominguez raised four main challenges: the classification of his 2015 Arizona conviction as an aggravated felony, the constitutionality of his prior removal proceedings, the calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range, and the substantive reasonableness of his upward variant sentence. The court found no reversible error in the district court's decisions. It held that Dominguez's guilty plea waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of his prior removals and that the district court did not plainly err in its Guidelines calculation or in imposing the upward variant sentence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Melvin Funez-Ortiz, a Honduran national, fled to the United States to escape violence and threats from a gang in Honduras. The gang had murdered several of his family members, shot him, and continued to threaten his family. After entering the U.S. in 2018, Funez was apprehended by immigration officials and later convicted of various offenses in Virginia. Following his imprisonment, he was transferred to immigration custody, where he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).An immigration judge (IJ) denied Funez’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal but granted his application for deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ found that Funez would likely be tortured by the gang with the acquiescence of the Honduran government if he were returned to Honduras. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).The BIA reversed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ’s finding that Funez could not safely relocate within Honduras was clearly erroneous. The BIA also disagreed with the IJ’s determination that the Honduran government would acquiesce to Funez’s torture, suggesting that the man in a military police uniform who threatened Funez’s family was likely a gang member rather than a government official.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court found that the BIA had ignored significant evidence regarding the gang’s continued threats and activities after 2018, which could impact Funez’s ability to relocate safely within Honduras. The court also determined that the BIA improperly reweighed evidence regarding whether the man in uniform was a government official. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit granted Funez’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Funez-Ortiz v. McHenry" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the district court's issuance of a nationwide injunction as to Section 2(c) of the challenged Second Executive Order (EO-2), holding that the reasonable observer would likely conclude EO-2's primary purpose was to exclude persons from the United States on the basis of their religious beliefs. Section 2(c) reinstated the ninety-day suspension of entry for nationals from six countries, eliminating Iraq from the list, but retaining Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.Determining that the case was justiciable, the Fourth Circuit held that plaintiffs have more than plausibly alleged that EO-2's stated national security interest was provided in bad faith, as a pretext for its religious purpose. Because the facially legitimate reason offered by the government was not bona fide, the court no longer deferred to that reason and instead may look behind the challenged action. Applying the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court held that the evidence in the record, viewed from the standpoint of the reasonable observer, created a compelling case that EO-2's primary purpose was religious. Then-candidate Trump's campaign statements revealed that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States. President Trump and his aides have made statements that suggest EO-2's purpose was to effectuate the promised Muslim ban, and that its changes from the first executive order reflect an effort to help it survive judicial scrutiny, rather than to avoid targeting Muslims for exclusion from the United States. These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both executive orders: President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States and his intent to effectuate the ban by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly. Because EO-2 likely fails Lemon's purpose prong in violation of the Establishment Clause, the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. The court also held that plaintiffs will likely suffer irreparable harm; the Government's asserted national security interests do not outweigh the harm to plaintiffs; and the public interest counsels in favor of upholding the preliminary injunction. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide complete relief, but erred in issuing an injunction against the President himself. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of a final order of removal, concluding that Maryland third degree burglary qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). The Fourth Circuit explained that Maryland's third degree burglary statute, breaking and entering a dwelling of another, with the intent to commit a crime, implicates moral values beyond the duty to obey the law and inherently is base, vile, or depraved. The act of breaking and entering a dwelling, with the intent to commit any crime, necessarily involves conduct that violates an individual's reasonable expectation that her personal living and sleeping space will remain private and secure. The Fourth Circuit reasoned that an individual's expectation that her dwelling will remain private, secure, and free from intruders intending to commit a crime is violated regardless whether the dwelling is occupied at the time of the burglary. View "Uribe v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Panama and admitted to the United States on a B-2 visitor visa, was subjected to expedited removal proceedings because he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence and his burglary offense was an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration law. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought review in the immigration court, petitioned for review, and was then removed. Following the DHS's subsequent cancellation of petitioner's removal order, the Attorney General moved in this Court to dismiss petitioner's petition for review. The court denied the Attorney General's renewed motion to dismiss, concluding that the court was not stripped of jurisdiction in a pending case simply by writing "cancelled" on a removal order the DHS has sued to remove an alien, and the court declined to dismiss the petition on mootness grounds. The court found that the Attorney General waived his remaining arguments. On the merits, the court concluded that the offense of statutory burglary in Virginia does not constitute an aggravated felony for purposes of immigration law. The court concluded that the Virginia burglary statute is indivisible, and application of the modified categorical approach is inappropriate. Using the categorical approach, the court concluded that the Virginia offense of statutory burglary criminalizes more conduct than the generic federal offense of burglary. Therefore, the DHS erred in classifying petitioner's conviction as an aggravated felony. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded. View "Castendet-Lewis v. Sessions III" on Justia Law