Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Lopez-Coronado De Lopez v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner, on behalf of herself and her son, claimed that her husband and a male neighbor have persecuted her on account of her membership in a particular social group as a Guatemalan woman, and will persecute her again if she returns to Guatemala. The court held that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered past persecution and that she did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court explained that persecution was an extreme concept and minor beatings from her husband did not amount to persecution. Furthermore, the harassment and threats from her neighbor also did not cross the threshold to constitute persecution. Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief under the Convention Against Torture, because the record did not show more likely than not that she would be subjected to torture in Guatemala. View "Lopez-Coronado De Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Lopez-Coronado De Lopez v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner, on behalf of herself and her son, claimed that her husband and a male neighbor have persecuted her on account of her membership in a particular social group as a Guatemalan woman, and will persecute her again if she returns to Guatemala. The court held that petitioner failed to establish that she suffered past persecution and that she did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court explained that persecution was an extreme concept and minor beatings from her husband did not amount to persecution. Furthermore, the harassment and threats from her neighbor also did not cross the threshold to constitute persecution. Finally, petitioner has not demonstrated an entitlement to relief under the Convention Against Torture, because the record did not show more likely than not that she would be subjected to torture in Guatemala. View "Lopez-Coronado De Lopez v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's appeal from the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable and denial of his applications for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that petitioner waived his challenge to the IJ's application of the "one central reason" nexus standard to petitioner's withholding of removal application; substantial evidence supported the IJ's conclusion that petitioner's worship of Santa Muerte was not one central reason for his persecution by Mexican law enforcement; and substantial evidence supported the denial of petitioner's application for CAT protection. View "Garcia-Moctezuma v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Onduso v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of his removal order. The court held that the BIA correctly determined that Minnesota misdemeanor domestic assault qualified as a crime of domestic violence and thus petitioner's conviction for this offense rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Onduso v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Baltti v. Sessions
The petition for rehearing by panel was granted and the previous opinion and judgment on July 10, 2017 was vacated.The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner sought to narrow his defined social group, but the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument because it had not been raised before. The court held that the BIA's finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution based on his political opinion was supported by substantial evidence. In this case, there was no nexus between any possible persecution and his political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. Furthermore, while petitioner's fear of persecution may be genuine, he failed to point to specific facts indicating this fear was more than speculation of the possibility of future harm. View "Baltti v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Ramirez-Barajas v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied petitions for review of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal and the BIA's dismissal of the subsequent appeal and denial of his motion to reconsider. The court held that the BIA did not err in finding that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal, nor abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration, because defendant's prior conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault under the Minnesota statute was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a). In this case, the BIA appropriately applied this circuit's law and did not abuse its discretion. View "Ramirez-Barajas v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Abuya v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision sustaining DHS's charges that petitioner entered into a fraudulent marriage with the purpose of procuring adjustment of status. The court held that the testimony and documentary evidence submitted by DHS -- and not refuted by credible evidence that petitioner and his wife ever lived together -- was substantial evidence that supported the IJ's finding that the marriage was fraudulent under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and therefore petitioner was removable under section 1227(a)(1)(A). View "Abuya v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Patel v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review challenging the denial of petitioner's application for a waiver and order of removal. The court held that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's admission of the ex-husband's affidavit and the USCIS report without granting petitioner's request for a subpoena or otherwise providing petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the ex-husband. The court also held that this error was prejudicial and rendered petitioner's removal hearing fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for remand under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), based on her now-husband's pending visa petition on her behalf, which would give petitioner the opportunity to adjust status independent of the conditional status she received by way of her marriage to her ex-husband. In this case, petitioner faced no accusations of fraud or willful misrepresentations, the IJ declined to make an adverse credibility finding, and the IJ explicitly acknowledged that petitioner had not been charged with entering into a marriage by fraud, or for paying for a marriage. View "Patel v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions
The failure to satisfy the warning requirements of 8 C.F.R. 240.25 does not preclude a finding of a voluntary departure under threat of deportation sufficient to break the ten-year period of continuous presence required to be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal of a nonpermanent resident alien under section 1229b(b). The court held that petitioner voluntarily departed the country under a threat of deportation, thus breaking his continuous presence here. View "Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions" on Justia Law
Kegeh v. Sessions
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that the IJ's credibility finding was rooted in numerous inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and the record, the implausibility of certain events, and a lack of corroborating evidence. Therefore, substantial evidence supported the denial of asylum. Because withholding of removal and CAT claims were based on the same discredited testimony, these claims also failed. View "Kegeh v. Sessions" on Justia Law