Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Eva Daley, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States as a child without inspection. As an adult, she was convicted of second-degree murder in California, but that conviction was later vacated and replaced with a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. After serving nearly fifteen years in prison, Daley was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) upon her release and transferred to a facility in Colorado. She applied for asylum and related relief, but after over a year in detention without a bond hearing, she filed a habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention.The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Daley’s habeas petition, ordering the government to provide her with an individualized bond hearing. Following the court’s order, an immigration judge held a bond hearing and released Daley on bond after 450 days in ICE custody. Daley then moved for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and the district court awarded her $18,553.92 in fees. The government appealed the fee award, arguing that the EAJA does not authorize fees in habeas actions challenging immigration detention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s fee award de novo, focusing solely on statutory interpretation of the EAJA. The Tenth Circuit held that habeas actions challenging immigration detention are “civil actions” within the meaning of the EAJA, based on common law history, judicial precedent, and statutory text. The court concluded that the EAJA unambiguously authorizes attorneys’ fees in such cases and affirmed the district court’s award of fees to Daley. View "Daley v. Choate" on Justia Law

A woman from Honduras and her two minor sons fled their home country after the murder of her partner, Arturo Robles, by a man named Jonis, who was associated with a gang. Following the murder, Jonis threatened the woman and her children, specifically targeting those related to Arturo. The woman reported these threats to the police, but they failed to act, which she attributed to their ties with gangs. Fearing for their safety, she and her children entered the United States unlawfully in 2014 and sought asylum, arguing that their persecution was due to their membership in Arturo’s nuclear family.After removal proceedings began, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted asylum in 2014, finding the woman and her brother credible and concluding that her family relationship was a central reason for the threats. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further factfinding. In 2019, after additional hearings and evidence, the IJ again granted asylum, finding that the threats were motivated by the family relationship, that the woman could not safely relocate within Honduras, and that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The government appealed again, and in 2023, a three-judge BIA panel vacated the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s 2023 order. The court held that the BIA misapplied the clear-error standard required by regulation when reviewing the IJ’s factual findings. The Tenth Circuit found that the IJ’s findings on nexus, internal relocation, and government protection were permissible and not clearly erroneous. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s grant of asylum. View "Ramos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A family from Colombia, consisting of two adults and their minor children, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States. They had been active members of the Colombian Liberal Party and participated in political campaigning. After receiving threatening phone calls related to their political activities, the family continued their involvement. Subsequently, the father, who was a provisional lawyer and intern at the National Prosecutor’s office, became involved in a property dispute with a man known as Don Rafa, a leader of a narco-trafficking group. Following this, the family received further threats, including armed confrontations and threats against their children, which they attributed to Don Rafa and his associates. The family relocated within Colombia briefly before departing for the United States.After arriving in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security charged the family as removable. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the family credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ concluded that the harm suffered did not amount to past persecution, lacked a nexus to a statutorily protected ground, and that internal relocation within Colombia was reasonably available. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal, also rejecting the family’s due process claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision under a substantial-evidence standard. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate past persecution, a nexus to a protected ground, or that the Colombian government was unable or unwilling to protect them. The court also found that the record did not show the family could not safely relocate within Colombia. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Jimenez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A family from Mexico fled their home after a criminal cartel murdered one of their members and issued repeated threats demanding that the family abandon their land and leave the area. The threats continued even after the family relocated within Mexico, ultimately leading them to enter the United States without valid documents. The family sought asylum and withholding of removal, arguing that they were persecuted because of their membership in a particular social group—namely, their family.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the family members credible but denied their applications, concluding that the asserted social groups were not cognizable and that, even if they were, the evidence did not show that family membership was a central reason for the persecution. The IJ found that the cartel’s primary motive was to control the land, not to target the family because of their familial ties. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal, upholding the IJ’s finding that there was no sufficient nexus between the persecution and the protected ground of family membership. The BIA stated that if a persecutor targets a family as a means to achieve an unrelated goal, family membership is only incidental or subordinate and not a central reason for the harm.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed only the BIA’s decision. The court held that the BIA applied an erroneous legal standard for determining whether family membership was “at least one central reason” for the persecution, as required by the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Tenth Circuit found that the BIA’s categorical rule improperly excluded mixed-motive claims where both protected and unprotected grounds may be central reasons for persecution. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standard. View "O.C.V. v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jasvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States without authorization in August 2018. He claimed he faced political violence in India due to his membership in the Mann Party, a rival political group. Singh was apprehended in New Mexico and processed for expedited removal. He conceded removability but requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. While detained, Singh went on a 74-day hunger strike to protest his detention conditions, resuming eating three weeks before his asylum hearing. Singh requested a continuance, claiming he lacked the competency to participate due to his hunger strike, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the request, finding Singh appeared healthy and competent. Singh then refused to sign his asylum application, resulting in an order of removal.Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ's decision. The BIA found that the IJ properly assessed Singh's competency and that there was no good cause for a continuance, given the time Singh had to prepare and his representation by counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Singh did not exhibit sufficient indicia of mental incompetency. The court noted that Singh was responsive to questions, appeared healthy, and had resumed eating three weeks before the hearing. The court also found that the IJ correctly assessed Singh's competency and that the BIA did not err in affirming the denial of the continuance. The court concluded that Singh had ample time to prepare for his hearing and lacked good cause for a continuance. Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision and denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States, which under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) carries a maximum sentence that depends on the defendant’s criminal history. Without a prior felony, the maximum is two years; with a prior felony, it is ten years; and with an aggravated felony, it is twenty years. The defendant had two prior felony convictions, but neither was for an aggravated felony. However, the government and probation office mistakenly assumed one conviction was for an aggravated felony, suggesting a twenty-year maximum.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced the defendant, possibly under the mistaken belief that the statutory maximum was twenty years. The defendant did not object to this error at the time. On appeal, both parties agreed that the correct statutory maximum was ten years, not twenty. The defendant argued that this error should be presumed prejudicial, while the government contended that the defendant must show actual prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government, stating that the defendant must show prejudice from the error. The court noted that other circuits have similarly required defendants to demonstrate prejudice in such situations. The court found no evidence that the district court’s error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, as the 42-month sentence was well below the correct ten-year maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range. The court concluded that the defendant did not show that the error had a substantial impact on his sentence and affirmed the 42-month sentence. View "United States v. Calderon-Padilla" on Justia Law

Stefan Green, a South African citizen, applied for an R-1 visa to serve as a worship leader at Calvary Albuquerque, Inc., a non-profit church in New Mexico. His application was denied by a consular officer, leading Calvary to sue, alleging the denial violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The district court dismissed the suit, citing the consular nonreviewability doctrine, which generally prevents judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the case, ruling that RFRA did not authorize judicial review of the consular officer’s decision. The court also found that the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for the visa denial, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. The district court denied Calvary’s motion for a preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that RFRA does not expressly authorize judicial review of consular officers' visa decisions, thus upholding the consular nonreviewability doctrine. The court also concluded that even if RFRA claims could be considered under the constitutional claim exception, the consular officer provided a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa, and Calvary did not plausibly allege bad faith. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Calvary Albuquerque v. Blinken" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, Ismael Vazquez-Garcia, was sentenced to 48 months for illegal reentry after being found by Border Patrol agents in New Mexico. He had previously been removed from the U.S. following a 2018 child-abuse conviction. At sentencing, the district court questioned him about the child-abuse conviction, which involved allegations of molestation. The court then imposed an 18-month upward variance from the recommended sentencing range of 24 to 30 months.The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico had adopted the unobjected-to allegations in the presentence report (PSR) about the child-abuse offense and varied upwards based on his criminal history. Vazquez-Garcia appealed, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. He contended that the district court erred by relying on the PSR's allegations and by varying upwards based on his criminal history, which he claimed was already accounted for in the Guidelines range.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Vazquez-Garcia had not shown his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because he did not object to the PSR's allegations, and the district court was permitted to adopt those unobjected-to facts. The court also found that the district court did not err by considering his criminal history for the upward variance. Additionally, the court ruled that the sentence was substantively reasonable, as the district court's focus on the child-abuse conviction was relevant to multiple sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 48-month sentence. View "United States v. Vazquez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, sought asylum in the United States, claiming that he faced persecution in India due to his political affiliation with the Mann party, a Sikh nationalist group. Singh testified that he was wrongfully arrested and tortured by Indian police in 2000, and that he was attacked twice by political opponents in 2017. He argued that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him from these private persecutors.An immigration judge (IJ) found Singh removable and denied his application for asylum and withholding of removal, concluding that Singh had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000 and that the police officers involved had been removed from their positions. The IJ also found that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police, undermining his claim that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, emphasizing that Singh had not shown that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed Singh's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not misinterpret the "unable or unwilling" standard for asylum claims based on private persecution. The court found that the BIA had considered both the Indian government's willingness and ability to protect Singh. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Singh had not demonstrated that the Indian government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The court noted that Singh had been acquitted of the false charges from 2000, that the police officers involved had been removed, and that Singh had not reported the 2017 attacks to the police. The court denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Francisco Flores-Molina was an undocumented alien subject to removal from the United States. An immigration judge determined he was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he has been convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude.” The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and dismissed Flores-Molina’s appeal. Flores-Molina then appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that his crime of conviction under Denver Municipal Code 38-40 (giving false information to a city official during an investigation), was a crime involving moral turpitude. The Tenth Circuit agreed, granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores-Molina v. Sessions" on Justia Law