Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Esquivel-Quintana was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2009, he pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in California. Esquivel-Quintana moved to Michigan. DHS initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), which states that an alien can be removed if he is convicted of an aggravated felony such as “sexual abuse of a minor,” An immigration judge ruled that Esquivel-Quintana’s conviction under California Penal Code section 261.5(c) constituted “sexual abuse of a minor” and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA and Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the term “sexual abuse of a minor” was permissibly interpreted to include the conviction. The BIA employed a categorical approach and held that the age differential in California’s statute—which requires an age gap of more than three years— was meaningful. View "Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Nancy and Saed Marouf, and their daughter were stateless Christian Palestinians, living in the West Bank. Saed arrived in the U.S. in 2008. Nancy and Naheda arrived in 2009. The Maroufs now have two children who were born in the U.S. Nancy sought asylum and withholding of removal, naming Saed and Naheda as derivative beneficiaries. Saed and Naheda applied separately. The Maroufs were placed in removal proceedings and charged with being unlawfully present in the U.S. They claimed that they were persecuted as a result of their Christian religion and testified about numerous instances, including Saed being attacked after he had escorted a group of Christian women who were being harassed by Muslim men; an attempted rape of Nancy; and a fire-bombing of Nancy’s parents’ house. The IJ denied relief, concluding that their testimony was not credible and failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution (asylum) or that it was more likely than not that they would be harmed (withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture) if removed. The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and noting that discretionary denials of asylum to otherwise-eligible applicants are rare and appropriate only in narrow circumstances. View "Marouf v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2003, Sanchez-Robles, a citizen of Mexico, and her four children, all born in Mexico, illegally entered the U.S.. Her husband, who does not have legal status in the U.S., has traveled back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. multiple times. In 2010, Sanchez-Robles was convicted of theft of property under $500 and was sentenced to three days in jail. Her counsel conceded her removability based on the conviction. Sanchez-Robles applied for withholding of removal, arguing that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her status as a “Mexican returnee” who spent significant time in, and has familial ties to the U.S. Sanchez-Robles testified that in 2002 she received phone calls claiming that her husband had been kidnapped and that her mother received calls from individuals claiming to have kidnapped Sanchez-Robles and her sibling. Neither Sanchez-Robles nor her mother paid; no one was harmed. Sanchez-Robles also presented evidence that her hometown has a problem with organized crime. The Immigration Judge determined that Sanchez-Robles was not eligible for withholding of removal and had not established a “clear probability” of persecution based on membership in a protected group. The BIA and Sixth Circuit affirmed. There is no particular social group consisting of nationals who return to their home country with the perception that they are wealthy. View "Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch" on Justia Law