Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner and her son entered the United States illegally after fleeing alleged gang violence in Honduras. They sought asylum and related relief but were denied; their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was likewise dismissed. Petitioner then moved the BIA to reopen her and her son’s removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion. Petitioner petitioned for a review of that denial.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction over the BIA’s refusal to reopen Petitioner, and it otherwise rejects her claims on the merits. The court explained that there is no per se rule that every family-based PSG is cognizable. Congress did not make persecution based on “family” a statutorily enumerated ground for asylum or withholding of removal. The court wrote that Petitioner was required to put forward at least some evidence of the social distinction of her son’s nuclear family in Honduran society. Because she did not, she failed to make out a prima facie case of eligibility for withholding of removal or asylum. The consequence is that she failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by allegedly ineffective counsel. The BIA did not err in denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her withholding-of-removal and asylum claims. Moreover, the court explained that attempting to raise a due process claim through an argument about the BIA’s failure to reopen sua sponte does not bring the claim within the court’s jurisdiction. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a native of El Salvador. He first entered the United States around 2003 and was ordered removed in 2007. He then returned three more times—in 2010, 2018, and 2019. This appeal concerns his 2019 visit. In September 2019, the federal government reinstated Petitioner’s 2007 removal order. Petitioner sought withholding of removal and CAT relief. An immigration judge denied his application and, on April 27, 2022, the BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review on May 26, 2022.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that Congress has limited the court’s jurisdiction to final orders “concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.  And it imposed another condition: the petition must be filed within 30 days of that order. The BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and CAT relief is not a final order of removal. And his petition is untimely because it was filed over 30 days after his reinstatement order became final. View "Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2019, Appellant filed a Form I-140 petition for a work visa under 8 USC Sec. 1153(b)(2) and Form I-485 applications for himself and his spouse to adjust their immigration statuses. Appellant's I-140 petition asserted that he satisfied the requirements to obtain a national-interest waiver under Sec. 1153(b)(2)(B)(i). USCIS declined to grant Appellant's request and denied his request for reconsideration.Appellant sued the US government, challenging the denials of his I-140 petition, his motion for reopening or reconsideration, and his I-485 applications. The Government moved to dismiss Appellant's complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the jurisdictional bar in 8 USC § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies to national-interest waiver denials. The district court dismissed Appellant's case, citing a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, Appellant claimed the district court erred in concluding that Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars jurisdiction over the denial of an I140 petition. Joining the Ninth, Eleventh, Third and D.C. Circuits, the court affirmed, finding Sec. 1153(b)(2)(B)(i) “expressly and specifically vest discretion in the Attorney General” to deny national-interest waivers. Thus, the jurisdiction bar in Sec. 1252(a)(2)(B) applies. View "Flores v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that government agents searched his cell phone at the border without a warrant on at least five occasions and that agents copied data from his cell phone at least once. Plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the respective heads of each entity in their official capacity (collectively, the government), challenging the searches, as well as ICE and CBP policies regarding border searches of electronic devices. In the district court, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking, among other relief, a preliminary injunction preventing the government from searching his cell phone at the border without a warrant. The district court denied the preliminary injunction.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial threat he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The court reasoned that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the ICE and CBP policies authorize warrantless searches. Further, the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint are evidence of a pattern of warrantless searches of Plaintiff’s cell phone. However, Plaintiff has no additional evidence to establish that he will be stopped by border agents in the future and that the agents will search his cell phone without a warrant. View "Anibowei v. Morgan" on Justia Law

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