Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

A Nigerian citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2005 was placed in removal proceedings after being convicted of conspiracy to commit passport fraud. He had lived in the U.S. for many years, had a long-term partner, and was the father of four U.S. citizen children. His conviction stemmed from a scheme to obtain fraudulent U.S. passports for noncitizens, for which he was sentenced to 27 months in prison. After serving his sentence and briefly fleeing to Canada, he was returned to the U.S. and charged as inadmissible for committing a crime involving moral turpitude. In removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming past persecution and fear of future harm in Nigeria due to his former union activities and threats from a militia group.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him inadmissible, denied all forms of relief, and determined that his conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, barring asylum and withholding. The IJ also found his and his partner’s testimony not credible and denied CAT relief, concluding he had not shown a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing with the IJ’s findings and further holding that the absence of an interpreter did not violate due process, that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, and that he was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA misapplied the legal standard for determining a particularly serious crime by failing to consider the elements of the underlying substantive offense in the conspiracy conviction. The court also found that the BIA did not properly analyze the CAT claim under the required legal framework and failed to consider eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility. The court denied the due process claim but vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, ordering a stay of removal pending the outcome. View "Amos v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

A Mexican national who entered the United States without authorization in 2000 was detained by the Department of Homeland Security in 2023 and charged as removable. Between 2019 and 2021, he was arrested and convicted of multiple offenses, including several DUIs in different states. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and later, cancellation of removal. At his hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) declined to hear live testimony from his wife and psychologist, relying instead on their written reports and other documentary evidence. The IJ denied all forms of relief, finding, among other things, that his DUI convictions precluded a finding of good moral character and that he failed to show his removal would cause his wife exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. The BIA found that he had waived his challenges to the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection by failing to raise them in his notice of appeal or briefing, rendering those claims unexhausted. The BIA also agreed with the IJ that his multiple DUI convictions established a lack of good moral character, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA rejected his due process claim, concluding he had received a full and fair hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the unexhausted claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection. Regarding cancellation of removal, the court found that substantial evidence supported the finding that the petitioner lacked good moral character and that he failed to show prejudice from the exclusion of live witness testimony. The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part. View "Sanchez v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan citizen who had been present in the United States since 2007 conceded removability for entering the country without admission or parole. He applied for cancellation of removal, which requires, among other things, at least ten years of continuous physical presence and a qualifying U.S. citizen relative who would suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if he were removed. The Immigration Judge found that he met the good moral character and criminal history requirements but concluded he had not established the necessary continuous presence or that his U.S. citizen son was a qualifying relative, partly due to lack of documentation. The judge also found that, even if the son qualified, the hardship did not exceed what is ordinarily expected from a parent’s removal.The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the Immigration Judge’s findings regarding the qualifying relative and hardship, dismissing the appeal. After the Immigration Judge’s decision but before the BIA’s decision, the petitioner’s U.S. citizen daughter was born. Following the BIA’s dismissal, he moved to reopen his case, arguing that his daughter’s birth was new evidence supporting his eligibility for relief. The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that the daughter’s birth was not “new” evidence because it occurred while the appeal was pending, and also found insufficient evidence of hardship. A motion for reconsideration was also denied, with the BIA reiterating its interpretation of “former hearing” and again finding no exceptional hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed only the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The court held that “new” evidence for a motion to reopen is evidence unavailable at the last hearing before the Immigration Judge, not before the BIA. However, because the BIA considered the new evidence and found it insufficient, the court found the BIA’s error harmless and denied the petition for review. View "Suchite-Salguero v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Roger Esteban Real, a native and citizen of Colombia, participated in protests in his home country, leading to his arrest and mistreatment by police. Fearing for his safety, he fled to the United States with his family in March 2022. Upon arrival, he surrendered to immigration authorities, who did not issue him a Notice to Appear (NTA) or inquire about his fear of returning to Colombia. He was instructed to attend a court hearing in 2025 and to check in regularly using a cell phone provided by the authorities.Real was later arrested for crimes related to a domestic dispute, and two months after this arrest, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued him an NTA. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable and, in July 2023, Real applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ granted him withholding of removal but denied his asylum application, citing his failure to meet the one-year filing deadline and lack of extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government's failure to notify Real of the one-year asylum application deadline did not constitute a due process violation. Additionally, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review Real's claim of extraordinary circumstances excusing his late filing, as such determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part. View "Real v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm, was accused by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) of breaching an employment agreement under the H-2A nonimmigrant visa program. The DOL alleged that Sun Valley failed to provide adequate housing, meal plans, transportation, and guaranteed work hours to its workers, as stipulated in the job order. The DOL imposed civil penalties and back wages totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars through administrative proceedings.The case was first reviewed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who affirmed most of the DOL's findings but slightly modified the penalties and back wages. Sun Valley then appealed to the Administrative Review Board, which upheld the ALJ's decision. Subsequently, Sun Valley challenged the DOL's decision in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that the administrative proceedings violated Article III of the Constitution, among other claims. The District Court dismissed Sun Valley's claims, holding that the DOL's actions fit within the public-rights doctrine and that the agency had statutory authority to impose penalties and back wages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and held that Sun Valley was entitled to have its case decided by an Article III court. The court found that the DOL's enforcement action resembled a common law breach of contract suit, which traditionally would be heard in a court of law. The court also determined that the case did not fit within the public rights exception to Article III adjudication, as the H-2A labor certification regulations primarily concern domestic employment law rather than immigration control. Consequently, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Sun Valley. View "Sun Valley Orchards LLC v. United States Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Lidia Gomez-Gabriel, a Guatemalan native and citizen, along with her son, sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Gomez-Gabriel testified that Guatemalan gang members harassed her for money on multiple occasions and threatened her with a weapon once. After this incident, she avoided the area and had no further interactions with the gang. Fearing for their safety, she and her son fled to the United States in November 2015. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and after being detained for twelve days, they were informed about the one-year deadline to file an asylum application. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in August 2017.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application, determining that the asylum application was time-barred and that the asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT applications were without merit. The Petitioners appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government that the Petitioners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding their asylum and CAT claims, as they did not raise these issues before the BIA. However, the court found that the Petitioners adequately challenged their withholding of removal claim.On the merits, the court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determination that Gomez-Gabriel's membership in a protected group was not a central reason for her persecution. The court found that the gang's motivation was financial gain rather than animus towards her group membership. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review. View "A. G.-G. v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

CoreCivic, Inc. has contracted with the federal government since 1996 to operate a private immigration detention center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. In 2023, CoreCivic planned to renew its contract, but New Jersey passed a law (AB 5207) prohibiting new, expanded, or renewed contracts for civil immigration detention. CoreCivic sued, arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by infringing on intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. The United States supported CoreCivic, emphasizing the detention center's critical role in federal immigration enforcement.The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment in favor of CoreCivic. The court found that AB 5207 interferes with the federal government's discretion in detaining aliens, violating intergovernmental immunity and being preempted by federal law. New Jersey appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that AB 5207 directly regulates the federal government by effectively banning contracts for immigration detention, a core federal function. The court emphasized that the law's impact on federal operations is substantial, as it would cripple ICE's ability to detain and remove aliens efficiently. The court concluded that New Jersey's law violates intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional as applied to CoreCivic. View "CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey" on Justia Law

Mohammad M. Qatanani, a Palestinian and citizen of Jordan, was admitted to the United States in 1996 on a work visa. In 1999, he applied to adjust his status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). An Immigration Judge (IJ) twice granted his application, in 2008 and 2020, after finding in his favor on fact and credibility determinations. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed the 2008 order, leading the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to vacate and remand the case. The IJ's 2020 order became final when DHS did not appeal within 30 days.The BIA later invoked an agency regulation to self-certify an appeal of the IJ’s 2020 order eleven months after it was issued, ultimately reversing the IJ’s decision and ordering Qatanani removed from the United States. Qatanani petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review of the BIA’s decision.The Third Circuit held that the BIA exceeded its authority by using an agency regulation to undo Qatanani’s adjustment to LPR status in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set out by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court emphasized that once the 30-day appeal period lapsed without an appeal, Qatanani’s adjustment to LPR status became final by operation of law. The court vacated the BIA’s order, reaffirming that the Attorney General must follow the statutory recission process if seeking to revoke LPR status. The court granted Qatanani’s petition for review and vacated the BIA’s order of removal. View "Qatanani v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Robert Lanoue, a Canadian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to submitting false claims to the government under 18 U.S.C. § 287. He operated a scuba school that was part of a government program funded by the post-9/11 GI Bill, which reimbursed him for teaching veterans. Lanoue admitted to submitting false and fraudulent claims, resulting in a loss of over $3 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Following his conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his crime was an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit with losses exceeding $10,000.The Immigration Judge found that Lanoue's crime met the criteria for an aggravated felony and denied his request for a waiver of inadmissibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, leading Lanoue to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that Lanoue's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 287 categorically involved deceit, as the statute requires knowingly submitting false claims to the government. The court also found that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the loss exceeded $10,000, based on Lanoue's stipulation and plea agreement indicating losses between $1.5 and $3.5 million.Lanoue's argument for a retroactive waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) was rejected. The court noted that to qualify for such a waiver, a lawful permanent resident must have been convicted or admitted to the crime at the time of reentry, which was not the case for Lanoue.The Third Circuit held that filing false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 287 is an aggravated felony involving deceit, and the government sufficiently proved the loss amount. Consequently, Lanoue is removable and ineligible for a waiver. The court denied his petition for review. View "Lanoue v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Hector David Tipan Lopez, a native of Ecuador, suffered persecution by a local gang, the Lobos, due to his efforts to encourage young drug addicts to stop using drugs after converting to Evangelical Christianity. The gang targeted him multiple times, robbing, beating, and threatening him, and he did not seek medical care or report these incidents to the police due to distrust. Fearing for his life, he entered the United States in February 2023 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings after his arrest for domestic violence. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him credible but denied his applications, ruling that his religion, race, and political opinions were not central reasons for his persecution. The IJ also concluded that Ecuadorian authorities would not acquiesce to his torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard by using a subordination-based test and an animus-based test for determining the nexus between Tipan Lopez's persecution and his religion. The court remanded the religious-nexus question to the BIA with instructions not to apply these tests. The court also remanded the CAT claim for the BIA to determine whether Ecuador can protect Tipan Lopez from torture, as the BIA did not make this determination. The court denied the petition for review regarding the BIA's findings on race and political opinion. View "Lopez v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law