Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Texas and Missouri filed suit seeking to compel DHS to employ the $2.75 billion Congress allocated “for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border” before those funds expire. The district court dismissed Texas for “claim splitting,” held that Missouri did not have standing to sue, and denied the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The states appealed.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to "expeditiously consider the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction." The court explained Texas should not have been dismissed for claim splitting because Texas’s Article III standing confers federal jurisdiction. In terms of causation, Texas needs only to have alleged facts showing the Federal Defendants’ conduct is a cause-in-fact of the injury that the State asserts. Here, Texas claimed that border barriers (i) reduce illegal entries in areas where constructed, and (ii) increase the rate at which illegal aliens are detected and apprehended.However, the court declined to order the states' requested remedy, instead remanding the case to the district court. View "State of Missouri v. Biden" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. He challenged the BIA decision on grounds that: (1) it was ultra vires because the order was signed by a temporary BIA member whose term had expired; (2) the BIA erred in finding that Petitioner lacked good moral character; and (3) the BIA erred in affirming the denial of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed his petition in part and denied it in part. Petitioner contended that the two temporary BIA members who ruled in his case acted ultra vires because their terms had “terminated by automatic operation of law” on October 31, 2020, nearly six months before they ruled in his case. His argument hinges on whether the Attorney General properly delegated his renewal authority to the Director through regulation. But his argument collapses against the BIA members’ reappointment paperwork because that documentation substantiates the Government’s assertion that the temporary BIA members were reappointed by the Attorney General, not the Director.   Petitioner also contended that the BIA improperly relied on a 2019 decision by the then-Acting Attorney General (AAG) because it was issued without legal authority due to alleged defects in the AAG’s appointment. The court did not consider merits because Petitioner failed to brief the issue adequately. View "Medina Carreon v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2005, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, was ordered removed in absentia. In 2018, he moved to reopen and rescind the removal order, and an immigration judge (IJ) denied his request. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA dismissed his appeal. He petitioned for a review of that dismissal. He contends that the BIA and the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceedings because the record does not show that his notice to appear (NTA) was ever filed with the immigration court, as required by 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.14(a).   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court reasoned that it has previously explained that Section 1003.14 “is not jurisdictional” but is “a claim-processing rule.” Thus, Petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge fails. Further, Petitioner argued that the BIA erred by relying on a reconstructed record that did not contain his NTA. The court explained that it discerned nothing in the record to suggest that Petitioner’s Form I-213 “is incorrect or was obtained by coercion or duress,” the BIA could thus properly rely on it as “inherently trustworthy and admissible as evidence” that Petitioner received notice of his removal hearing. Though Petitioner presented his own sworn declarations challenging his understanding of the translator’s statements, documents he may have signed, and his need to attend a removal hearing, he failed to present such compelling evidence that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. The BIA thus did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his motion to reopen. View "Alexandre-Matias v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner came to the United States from El Salvador as a teenager. While in high school, he inappropriately touched his younger female relative and was later charged under Texas Penal Code Section 22.04(a) with injuring a child by omission. That conviction spawned immigration proceedings in which he was found removable by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner sought review of that decision. An Immigration Judge (IJ) held a hearing and found that Petitioner was subject to removal. Petitioner then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the BIA and argued that (1) Texas Penal Code Section 22.04(a) is indivisible, and even if divisible, it is overbroad and does not fit the generic federal definition of child abuse; (2) his conviction does not qualify as a CIMT; and (3) the IJ erred in denying his applications for asylum and relief under the CAT.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court held that Petitioner’s argument that the statute is indivisible is now foreclosed by Monsonyem. Petitioner was convicted under the portion of Section 22.04(a) relating to child abuse, and the BIA properly concluded he was removable based on that conviction. Further, the court held that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Texas “would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of child abuse.” None of Petitioner’s proffered cases demonstrates that Texas would apply Section 22.04(a) to crimes that do not align with the BIA’s definition of child abuse. View "Ponce v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without inspection on or about July 17, 1999. He was 25 years old. Soon after his entry, he was apprehended with others who had entered the country near Brownsville, Texas. On July 23, 1999, he was given a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him as subject to removal because he was present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The NTA did not provide a hearing date or time. Petitioner’s then-current address was correctly listed on the NTA as the address of the processing center in Los Fresnos, Texas, where he was then detained. Petitioner challenged the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind his in-absentia removal order.   The Fifth Circuit denied his petition. The court held: (1) Rodriguez does not apply here; (2) Spagnol Bastos, Gudiel, and Platero-Rosales govern this case; (3) the applicable rule from those cases is that an alien who fails to provide a viable mailing address/to correct an erroneous address forfeits his right to notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(B); and (4) Petitioner forfeited his right to notice by failing to correct the erroneous address listed in his “Notification Requirement for Change of Address” and Form I-830. View "Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Cambodia, was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1983. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) in Pennsylvania state court and was sentenced to 3 to 24 months imprisonment. Based on that conviction, Petitioner was charged as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G). Petitioner filed a motion to terminate his removal proceedings. Petitioner argued that his conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony. An IJ denied the motion, holding that Section 3925(a) “on its face” requires proof of “a defendant’s knowledge or belief, and that belief is not objective” and that the statute thus satisfied the generic mens rea requirement. Petitioner sought relief from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) finding that he is removable.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court found that Petitioner’s conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) constitutes receipt of stolen property and thus is an aggravated felony for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The court explained that the Third Circuit has held that Pennsylvania’s receipt of stolen property offense does not have an objective element and is “purely subjective.” The Third Circuit has considered variations on Petitioner’s argument and has rejected them. The court, therefore, concluded that 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 3925(a) is a categorical theft offense and thus qualifies as an “aggravated felony.” View "Khan v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Petitioner concedes that he is removable but seeks cancellation of removal based on the hardship his removal would cause his family. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation, and Petitioner petitioned the court for review. Petitioner’s challenge is twofold. First, he contends that the IJ and the BIA failed to use the proper legal standard to assess his eligibility for discretionary relief. Second, he argued that the BIA erred by failing to remand his case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence as well as a potential grant of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the IJ and BIA thoroughly considered each of Petitioner’s hardship arguments and applied the appropriate legal standard. The BIA also considered the new evidence presented by Petitioner but concluded that this evidence was unlikely to change the IJ’s decision. The record supports the conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that the consequences of his removal are “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves his country.” Further, Petitioner did not present this argument to the BIA, and a petitioner “must fairly present an issue to the BIA to satisfy Section 1252(d)’s exhaustion requirement.” View "Rangel Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

A federal jury convicted Petitioners of visa fraud, and the government charged them with removability based on that conviction. Petitioners contend that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in holding that the visa fraud waiver could not overcome the grounds for their removal. Petitioners also raised a due process claim and issues the BIA did not address.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied it in part. The court held that Section 1227(a)(1)(H) does not function to waive a charge under Section 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii). The BIA’s treatment of Petitioners, in this case, is dissimilar and far from arbitrary—the government charged them with removability for fraud convictions under a provision intended to make aliens removable for committing specifically that crime. The government simply applied the law as Congress wrote it. Further, the court wrote that the IJ and the BIA found no need to consider Petitioners’ other arguments. Petitioners submitted significant evidence to the agency and were afforded multiple oral hearings to present their case, where the IJ reviewed their evidence. Petitioners were also afforded the opportunity to argue their theory of the law. Thus, Petitioners have not shown a violation of their due process rights. View "Reese v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Castro Balza v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Gomez Barco v. Witte" on Justia Law