Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Hung Huu Quoc Nguyen challenged the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) revocation of its approval of his EB-3 visa petition. An EB-3 visa allows noncitizens performing unskilled labor with a full-time job offer to work in the U.S. and potentially adjust their status to permanent resident. Nguyen’s employer, Muy Pizza Tejas, LLC, filed an I-140 petition on his behalf, which was later approved. However, after Muy Pizza sold the restaurant employing Nguyen to Ayvaz Pizza, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke the approval, citing concerns about Muy Pizza’s ability to pay Nguyen’s wages and the validity of the numerous I-140 petitions it had filed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed Nguyen’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the claims amounted to a challenge of an unreviewable discretionary decision by USCIS. Nguyen appealed, arguing that his I-140 petition met the portability provision requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1154(j), which should have prevented USCIS from revoking the petition. He also claimed that USCIS made procedural errors, including failing to make a successor-in-interest determination regarding Ayvaz Pizza.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the portability provision did not apply to Nguyen’s I-140 petition because it was invalid from the start due to Muy Pizza’s failure to prove its ability to pay Nguyen’s wages. Consequently, the court found that USCIS’s revocation of the petition was a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review. Additionally, the court determined that Nguyen did not establish any specific procedural errors by USCIS that would warrant judicial review. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Nguyen v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

Astrid Dariana Lopez Orellana, a noncitizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2019, fleeing gang threats in Honduras. In 2022, she was convicted of accessory after the fact to armed robbery under Louisiana law. Subsequently, she was taken into ICE custody and designated as an aggravated felon, leading to expedited removal proceedings.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to remove her, alleging her conviction was an aggravated felony. Lopez requested withholding of removal, and an asylum officer found she had a reasonable fear of persecution if returned to Honduras. Her case was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ). DHS later issued a new NOI and FARO on the same day, claiming her conviction was an aggravated felony related to obstruction of justice. Lopez challenged this, arguing the Louisiana statute did not match the federal definition of obstruction of justice, and that DHS violated procedural regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the Louisiana accessory-after-the-fact statute requires only general intent, whereas the federal obstruction of justice offense requires specific intent. Therefore, the state statute is not a categorical match for the federal offense. The court also determined that DHS violated Lopez’s due process rights by not following proper procedures, such as issuing the FARO and NOI on the same day and failing to serve the FARO in a timely manner.The Fifth Circuit granted Lopez’s petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded the case to DHS for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court directed the government to facilitate Lopez’s participation in these proceedings. View "Orellana v. Garland" on Justia Law

A man who has lived in the United States for thirty years, married to a U.S. citizen and father to U.S. citizens, has been attempting to adjust his immigration status for seventeen years. His third application was denied in 2021 due to the use of an incorrect birthdate, which was deemed to constitute fraud. The man sought review in district court, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. He then appealed this decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, stating that decisions regarding the adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility are within the discretion of USCIS and are not subject to judicial review. The court cited 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and § 1182(i)(2), which preclude judicial review of such discretionary decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility, regardless of whether the judgment is made in removal proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland, which interpreted the statute to broadly preclude judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under § 1255. The court acknowledged the potential for governmental errors but concluded that the statutory language clearly barred judicial review in this context. View "Momin v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

Collins Enyong Aben, a native and citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States without valid entry documents and was placed in removal proceedings. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution due to his political opinion and membership in several particular social groups. Aben testified that he was targeted by the Cameroonian military for treating separatist fighters as a nurse, leading to multiple arrests, beatings, and death threats.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, citing the Third-Country Transit Bar and doubting Aben's credibility due to inconsistencies in his testimony. The IJ also found that Aben failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that his harm was not politically motivated but due to his occupation as a nurse. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Aben's appeal, assuming his credibility but agreeing with the IJ that he did not establish past persecution or a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA also found that Aben failed to corroborate his claims and that changed country conditions in Cameroon undermined his fear of future persecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA failed to address key evidence, including credible death threats and the imputation of a political opinion to Aben. The court held that the BIA's determinations regarding past persecution, nexus, and corroboration were not supported by substantial evidence. The court vacated the BIA's decision on Aben's asylum and withholding of removal claims and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court denied the petition for review regarding Aben's CAT claim, finding that he had forfeited any challenge to the BIA's determination on that issue. View "Aben v. Garland" on Justia Law

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