Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Three U.S. citizens each sponsored a close family member for an immigrant visa to the United States. After their petitions were approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the family members applied for visas at the U.S. Consulate General in Guangzhou, China. Following interviews, the consular officers denied the visa applications, citing fraud or misrepresentation as the basis for inadmissibility. The U.S. citizen sponsors challenged these denials in federal court, alleging that the decisions were not facially legitimate or bona fide, were issued in bad faith, and that the notices were untimely.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the claims. It found that one plaintiff’s claim was brought in an improper venue and dismissed it without prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which generally bars judicial review of consular visa decisions. The district court concluded that, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of State v. Muñoz, U.S. citizens do not have a constitutional right to reunite with parents or siblings through visa sponsorship, and thus no constitutional right was burdened by the denials. The court also found the allegations of bad faith insufficient and rejected the timeliness argument as a repackaged merits challenge.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Second Circuit held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes judicial review of the visa denials because the plaintiffs did not have a constitutional right implicated by the denials. The court also agreed that the plaintiffs’ alternative arguments lacked merit and that the consular officers’ decisions were insulated from judicial review. View "Chen v. Rubio" on Justia Law

A citizen of Ecuador who had been living unlawfully in the United States since 1997 was placed in removal proceedings after multiple convictions, including for driving under the influence. He conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his three U.S.-citizen children. At the time of his application, all three children were minors. During a hearing before an immigration judge, he and his eldest daughter testified about the potential hardship his removal would cause. The judge ultimately denied his application, finding he lacked good moral character and had not shown the required level of hardship to his children.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, specifically agreeing that the petitioner had not demonstrated the necessary hardship to his children. The petitioner did not seek judicial review of this decision. Later, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, submitting new evidence—a psychological evaluation of his eldest daughter, who was then almost 20 years old—arguing that this showed she would suffer the requisite hardship. Nearly two years later, the BIA denied the motion, concluding that the new evidence would not change the outcome because the daughter had turned 21 while the motion was pending and thus no longer qualified as a “child” under the relevant statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen. The court held that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D), a qualifying “child” must be under 21 at the time the application for cancellation of removal is adjudicated, not at the time of filing or when evidence is presented. The court also found that the petitioner was not barred from raising this issue on appeal, as the BIA had raised it sua sponte. The petition for review was denied. View "Yupangui-Yunga v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two noncitizens, one from Egypt and one from Guatemala, each entered the United States in the 1990s and were granted asylum after claiming persecution in their home countries. Both later committed criminal offenses—one was convicted of stalking and child endangerment, the other of multiple driving while intoxicated offenses. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to terminate their asylum status, arguing that their convictions constituted “particularly serious crimes.” Immigration Judges in both cases terminated their asylum status and ordered their removal, but the petitioners sought to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b).In the first case, the Immigration Judge initially granted the adjustment application, reasoning that the statute did not explicitly require current asylum status. The Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, relying on its decision in Matter of T-C-A-, which held that only those with current asylum status are eligible for adjustment. In the second case, the Immigration Judge denied the adjustment application on the same grounds, and the BIA affirmed. Both petitioners then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the statutory language and the relevant context, including neighboring provisions and legislative history. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) requires a noncitizen to have current asylum status to be eligible for adjustment to lawful permanent resident status. The court concluded that a past grant of asylum is insufficient if that status has since been terminated. Accordingly, the court denied both petitions for review. View "Wassily v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was ordered removed after being convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree under New York Penal Law (NYPL) § 130.60(2). This conviction was deemed an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(A) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because it constituted "sexual abuse of a minor." Approximately a year later, the petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion as untimely and concluded that he did not warrant equitable tolling.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially determined that the petitioner’s conviction was an aggravated felony, rendering him removable and ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. The IJ also found the conviction to be a "particularly serious crime," barring withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion to remand for consideration of new evidence regarding his mental health and diabetes diagnosis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition challenging the removal order, citing its recent decision in Debique v. Garland, which held that a conviction under NYPL § 130.60(2) is categorically an aggravated felony. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments that Debique was not binding and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo undermined its precedential force. The court also denied the petition challenging the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, finding that the BIA had a reasonable basis for concluding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence for the entire period between the expiration of the 90-day deadline and the filing of the motion. View "Garcia Pinach v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Roger Alberto Lainez was born in El Salvador in 1970 to parents who never married. He and his mother immigrated to the United States in 1979 as lawful permanent residents, and his mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1985. Lainez's father never naturalized and did not participate in raising him. Lainez faced removal proceedings due to convictions for several crimes, including robbery and burglary.In 2009, the government initiated removal proceedings against Lainez, citing his aggravated felony convictions and crimes involving moral turpitude. Lainez, representing himself, claimed U.S. citizenship derived from his mother's naturalization. In 2012, an Immigration Judge (IJ) rejected his citizenship claim and ordered his removal. Lainez did not appeal but later sought a certificate of citizenship, which was denied. In 2017, Lainez filed a complaint in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment of U.S. citizenship, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recognized his nonfrivolous citizenship claim and suggested he seek to reopen his immigration case. Lainez filed a motion to reconsider or reopen the proceedings in 2020, which the IJ denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal in 2021.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that Lainez's paternity was not "established by legitimation" under former § 321(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court determined that El Salvador's 1983 constitution, which equalized the rights of children regardless of their parents' marital status, did not establish Lainez's paternity by legitimation. Consequently, Lainez derived U.S. citizenship from his mother's naturalization. The court granted Lainez's petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded to the BIA with instructions to terminate the removal proceedings. View "Lainez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2017, Gladys Eudosia Toalombo Yanez, a native and citizen of Ecuador, was placed in removal proceedings for entering the United States without inspection. She conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that her deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her U.S. citizen children. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application, finding that she did not meet the burden of proving the required level of hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the evidence did not demonstrate the necessary hardship.Toalombo Yanez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the BIA's hardship determination was not supported by the evidence and that the BIA retroactively applied a new legal standard to her case. Initially, the government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over these issues. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, the government conceded that the court had jurisdiction to review the agency's hardship determination and the retroactivity claim.The Second Circuit held that the appropriate standard of review for the hardship determination is clear error. Upon review, the court found that the agency did not err in concluding that Toalombo Yanez failed to demonstrate the required hardship for cancellation of removal. The court also reviewed the retroactivity claim de novo and concluded that the BIA did not impermissibly retroactively apply any new rules. Therefore, the Second Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Yanez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A man was accused in Ecuador of repeatedly sexually abusing his partner’s ten-year-old daughter over the course of a year, beginning in August 2016. The alleged abuse included digital penetration and other sexual acts, accompanied by threats to the victim and her family. After the allegations surfaced, the man fled to the United States in 2018. Ecuador requested his extradition, and U.S. authorities arrested him in July 2024. The extradition request was based on charges of sexual abuse under Ecuadorian law, which does not require penetration, unlike the offense of rape.A magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York held an extradition hearing, excluded the defendant’s proposed expert testimony about Ecuadorian evidentiary law, and certified his extradition, finding probable cause that he committed acts constituting rape as defined in the extradition treaty. The defendant then filed a habeas corpus petition in the district court, arguing that sexual abuse was not an extraditable offense, that the magistrate judge erred in excluding his expert, and that humanitarian concerns should preclude extradition. The district court denied the petition, rejecting all arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that extradition is permissible when the underlying conduct matches an offense listed in the relevant treaty, regardless of the specific charge’s name in the requesting country. The court found probable cause that the defendant’s conduct constituted rape, an extraditable offense. It also held that the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding the expert testimony and reaffirmed that humanitarian concerns are for the Executive Branch, not the courts, to consider. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Lalama Gomez v. United States" on Justia Law

Dharwinder Singh, a citizen of India, petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claimed he faced persecution in India due to his political opinion and provided testimony about attacks he suffered in 2013. However, his statements during a border interview in the United States contradicted his hearing testimony, leading to an adverse credibility determination by the IJ.The IJ found Singh not credible because his hearing testimony about being attacked in August and November 2013 conflicted with his statement to a border patrol agent that he left India in April 2013. Singh explained that he lied during the border interview on the advice of his smuggler. The IJ did not find this explanation convincing and determined that Singh's willingness to lie undermined his credibility. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the REAL ID Act's totality-of-the-circumstances standard applied, rather than the Ramsameachire factors previously used to evaluate the reliability of border interviews.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court agreed that the REAL ID Act displaced the Ramsameachire factors and established a presumption that border interviews are proper to consider in adverse credibility determinations. The court found that the IJ and BIA properly assessed the reliability of Singh's border interview under the totality of the circumstances and that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the court denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Rajanbir Singh-Kar, a citizen of India, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. He claimed that members of a rival political party attacked him twice due to his political activities and that a police officer slapped him, threatened to jail him, and threw him out of the police station when he tried to report the attacks.An immigration judge (IJ) denied Singh-Kar’s application, finding that his testimony regarding a single incident of police misconduct was insufficient to establish that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The IJ also found inconsistencies between Singh-Kar’s application and his testimony. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ did not clearly err in finding that Singh-Kar’s evidence was insufficient. The BIA also noted that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of Singh-Kar’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Singh-Kar’s testimony about a single incident of police misconduct and general country conditions evidence did not compel a different result. The court also found that Singh-Kar failed to preserve his CAT claim and did not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, the Second Circuit denied Singh-Kar’s petition for review. View "Singh-Kar v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Suqin Xia, a citizen of China, has lived unlawfully in the United States for over thirty years. She applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her application, citing discretionary reasons. Xia then challenged the decision in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.The district court dismissed Xia's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding an application made under § 1255. The court concluded that the denial of Xia's application was a "judgment" under this statute, thus precluding judicial review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the denial of an application for adjustment of status under § 1255 is a "judgment" for purposes of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), regardless of whether it is issued by an immigration court or USCIS. Consequently, the court held that there was no jurisdiction to review Xia's claims, affirming the district court's dismissal of her complaint. View "Xia v. Bondi" on Justia Law