Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

L. N., a native of Angola, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. She claimed persecution due to her and her father's opposition to corruption in Angola, citing incidents including her home being shot at in 2008, an assault in Ecuador in 2016, and her house being set on fire in 2017. L. N. argued that these incidents were connected to her father's anti-corruption activities.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied L. N.'s applications, finding she did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) initially remanded the case to the IJ to consider expert testimony and the feasibility of internal relocation within Angola. On remand, the IJ again denied her claims, and the BIA affirmed this decision, leading L. N. to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. The court applied the substantial evidence standard for factual findings and de novo review for constitutional claims and questions of law. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that L. N. did not suffer state-sponsored persecution and that the Angolan government was willing and able to protect her. The court also held that the BIA did not err in its analysis of past and future persecution and that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT protection. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit denied L. N.'s petition for review. View "L. N. v. Garland" on Justia Law

Buzzy Martinez was arrested and charged with transporting undocumented aliens hidden in his tractor-trailer after a U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) canine alerted to the vehicle. Martinez argued that the canine’s alerts could not provide the handler with the necessary reasonable suspicion to extend the stop of his vehicle and probable cause to search it because dogs are unable to reliably differentiate between the scents of a vehicle’s driver and concealed humans within the vehicle. The district court denied Martinez’s motion to suppress the evidence gathered from his vehicle, and he pleaded guilty while preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.The district court found that the USBP canine and its handler were adequately trained and certified to detect concealed humans, and that dogs are capable of detecting concealed humans. The court concluded that the canine’s alerts and indications were reliable, providing reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for a second sniff, and probable cause to search Martinez’s tractor-trailer after Martinez was removed from the vehicle. Martinez was sentenced to eighteen months in prison, followed by a term of supervised release of three years, and he appealed the ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the district court's finding that the canine was reliable in detecting concealed humans was not clearly erroneous. The court also noted that the canine was trained and certified to detect both concealed humans and controlled substances, and Martinez did not contest the canine's ability to detect controlled substances. Therefore, the canine's alert provided the handler with reasonable suspicion to investigate for and probable cause to search for controlled substances. The court concluded that the canine's alerts and indications at the primary inspection point provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop and investigate for concealed humans, and at the secondary inspection point, after Martinez exited the vehicle and stated no one else was inside, the canine's continued alerts to the cab area of Martinez’s tractor-trailer provided probable cause to search the cab for concealed humans. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Sonia Rangel and her two minor children, Luisa and Mary Loredo, citizens of Mexico who entered the United States illegally, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They claimed they should be protected from removal due to their belief that the Mexican Navy would persecute and torture them to dissuade Rangel from her campaign against the Mexican military for the disappearance of her son. The Immigration Judge (I.J.) denied their applications, finding they had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and were not eligible for CAT relief due to failure to establish the requisite likelihood of future torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA's factual findings under the substantial evidence standard and its legal conclusions de novo. The court found that the evidence did not compel a conclusion that the petitioners had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court also found that the petitioners had not met the higher bar of showing it was more likely than not they would be tortured upon return to Mexico, which is required for CAT relief. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision to deny the applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. View "Loredo Rangel v. Garland" on Justia Law

Sandra Beatriz Bustamante-Leiva and her three children, natives and citizens of Honduras, entered the United States illegally near Hildalgo, Texas. They were charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for not possessing valid documentation at the time of entry. Bustamante-Leiva applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and humanitarian asylum, with her children as riders to her application. The claims were based on alleged persecution due to religion, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. Bustamante-Leiva and her children had fled Honduras due to threats from gang members, who had used an empty lot adjacent to their home for violent activities.The immigration judge denied all requested relief and ordered that the petitioners be removed to Honduras. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the immigration judge’s findings that the petitioners did not show harm rising to the level of persecution, did not show a nexus between the harm and a protected ground, and did not establish a cognizable particular social group. The BIA also rejected due process arguments made by the petitioners and denied their request for a three-member panel as moot.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA did not err in its determinations. The court found that the petitioners failed to show membership in a cognizable particular social group and failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion. The court also rejected the petitioners' claims that the BIA violated their due process rights by allowing a single BIA member to render its decision, and that the BIA violated its regulatory obligation to be impartial. The court denied the petition for review. View "Bustamante-Leiva v. Garland" on Justia Law

A group of Indian nationals, legally present in the United States on employment-based visas, filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The plaintiffs were seeking permanent residency and challenged the defendants' approach to distributing immigrant visas. They argued that the defendants' policies of deferring adjudication of their applications until a visa number becomes available violated the statute governing adjustment of status for nonimmigrants. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief under the Administrative Procedure Act and the federal Declaratory Judgment Act.The plaintiffs had initially moved for a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, but their motion was denied. They appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit, however, found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. The court cited the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which strips federal courts of jurisdiction to address many challenges brought in the context of immigration proceedings. The court concluded that the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions precluded it from hearing the plaintiffs' challenge. The court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Cheejati v. Blinken" on Justia Law

In an effort to curb illegal immigration, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (S.B. 4), which amended various statutes. The new laws prohibited noncitizens from illegally entering or reentering the state and established removal procedures. However, the United States, two non-profit organizations, and the county of El Paso challenged S.B. 4, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the state of Texas appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Texas’s motion to stay the injunction, arguing that the state had not shown it was likely to succeed on the merits of its preemption claims. The court found that the federal government has broad and exclusive power over immigration, including the entry and removal of noncitizens. The court also noted that the Texas law interfered with the federal government's foreign policy objectives and could lead to unnecessary harassment of noncitizens who federal officials determine should not be removed.Furthermore, the court concluded that S.B. 4 conflicted with federal law because it blocked the federal government's discretion to decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings or civil immigration proceedings once a noncitizen is apprehended, and because it permitted state courts to impose criminal sanctions and order removal of noncitizens without the federal government's input.In light of these findings, the court ruled that the balance of equities weighed against granting a stay. The court emphasized that any time a state is prevented from enforcing statutes enacted by its representatives, it suffers a form of irreparable injury. However, the court also noted that enforcement of S.B. 4 could lead to international friction and potentially take the United States out of compliance with its treaty obligations. Therefore, the court denied Texas's motion for a stay pending appeal. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law

Fody Daniel Membreno-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought review of the denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Initially, Membreno-Rodriguez was deemed inadmissible to the United States due to lack of a valid entry document but was granted parole. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), all of which were denied. After marrying a U.S. citizen, Membreno-Rodriguez moved to reopen his immigration proceedings to pursue adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. However, the BIA denied the motion on grounds of his inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision that Membreno-Rodriguez was ineligible for adjustment of status under § 1255(a) since he had conceded his inadmissibility under § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). The court also noted that his parole status had no effect on his status as an applicant for admission into the United States. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Membreno-Rodriguez's motion to reopen for failing to demonstrate his prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. View "Membreno-Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Mario Alejos-Perez, a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, sought a review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final order of removal that found him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on his Texas conviction for possessing a synthetic cannabinoid. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied his petition for review. The court agreed with the BIA's conclusion that Alejos-Perez failed to prove there was a "realistic probability" that Texas would use the state statute he was convicted under to prosecute the possession of drugs that are not criminalized under federal law, which would mean his conviction would not be a removable offense. Alejos-Perez argued that the "realistic probability" standard should not apply, but the court rejected his argument, citing the rule of orderliness and the law of the case doctrine. The court also found that Alejos-Perez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding several authorities he cited for the first time during his appeal. View "Alejos-Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed an appeal by Evaristo Contreras Silva, a Mexican citizen who was convicted of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). Silva entered the United States unlawfully and was detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2018. He was informed of his illegal status and given an I-94 form. Silva argued that he believed he was lawfully in the U.S. based on the I-94 form and his interactions with immigration officials. In February 2022, Silva was found in possession of a firearm after a domestic violence call from his wife. He was subsequently charged and convicted for firearm possession as an illegal alien.On appeal, Silva argued that the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he was unlawfully in the U.S. when he possessed the firearm. He based his belief on the I-94 form, advice from his immigration attorneys, adherence to his bond conditions, and various applications to change his status after his arrest.However, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the Government provided sufficient evidence that Silva knew he was in the U.S. unlawfully when he possessed a firearm according to the standard set in Rehaif v. United States. The court considered Silva's unlawful entry, his detention by DHS, his admission of unlawful entry in an application for status adjustment, and the pending status of his immigration applications at the time he possessed the firearm. The court concluded that although there was evidence supporting Silva's belief of lawful presence, it did not justify a judgment of acquittal as the evidence was not definitive and the issue was appropriately presented to the jury. View "United States v. Silva" on Justia Law

In this case, a native and citizen of Honduras, Kelmi Velasquez-Castillo, appealed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which denied his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Velasquez-Castillo, who had been categorized as an unaccompanied minor after his second entry to the U.S., argued that his removal would violate the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and that new evidence regarding his sexual orientation was relevant to his eligibility for asylum. The BIA had upheld the Immigration Judge's decision that Velasquez-Castillo failed to show that the new evidence was not available at the time of the previous hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the BIA erred in denying the motion to reopen without resolving the issue of the statutory provisions relating to an unaccompanied minor, and that the BIA failed to consider whether there was new and previously unavailable evidence in support of asylum eligibility. The Court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded the case for the BIA to interpret the TVPRA's relevant provisions in the first instance and to consider whether the new evidence met the requirements for reopening the case. View "Velasquez-Castillo v. Garland" on Justia Law