Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

King County, Washington, issued Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which directed county officials to ensure that future leases at Boeing Field prohibit fixed base operators (FBOs) from servicing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charter flights. This order was based on the county's disagreement with federal immigration policies. Following the issuance of the order, all three FBOs at Boeing Field ceased servicing ICE flights, forcing ICE to relocate its operations to Yakima Air Terminal, which increased operational costs and security concerns.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment for the United States, finding that the Executive Order violated both the Supremacy Clause’s intergovernmental immunity doctrine and a World War II-era contract reconveying Boeing Field to King County. The district court concluded that the Executive Order discriminated against the federal government and its contractors and breached the Instrument of Transfer, which required King County to allow the United States nonexclusive use of the landing area at Boeing Field.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the United States had Article III standing to bring the suit, as it had suffered concrete and particularized injuries due to the increased operational costs and imminent risk of future injury from the Executive Order. The court also found that the United States’ claims were ripe for adjudication.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Executive Order violated the Instrument of Transfer by preventing ICE from using Boeing Field, thus breaching the contractual right of the United States to use the airport. Additionally, the court held that the Executive Order violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine by improperly regulating federal operations and discriminating against the federal government and its contractors. The court rejected King County’s defenses, including the anti-commandeering and market participant doctrines. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA V. KING COUNTY" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Jose Ernesto Aleman-Belloso, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that upheld an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Aleman, an influential lay minister in his church, was approached by members of the FMLN, a political party in El Salvador, to use his influence to garner support for the party. After refusing their proposition, Aleman was attacked by masked gunmen who threatened him and demanded he leave town. Aleman fled to the United States shortly after.The IJ found Aleman’s testimony credible and acknowledged that he was tortured by the FMLN. However, the IJ concluded that Aleman failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and any protected grounds, thus denying his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ also denied CAT relief, finding it unlikely that Aleman would be tortured again in the future. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Aleman did not demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the persecution and his religious beliefs, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the BIA erred in its conclusions. The court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA’s finding of no nexus between the persecution Aleman suffered and his political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The court noted that Aleman’s refusal to support the FMLN was a political opinion and that the FMLN attacked him because of this opinion. Additionally, the court found that the BIA mischaracterized Aleman’s proposed social group and improperly rejected it as circularly defined. The court also concluded that the BIA failed to consider probative evidence regarding government involvement in Aleman’s past torture and the FMLN’s continued power in El Salvador.The Ninth Circuit granted Aleman’s petition for review, remanding the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court instructed the BIA to reconsider Aleman’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, taking into account the correct characterization of his social group and the evidence of government involvement in his persecution. View "ALEMAN-BELLOSO V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the "metering" policy implemented by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the U.S.-Mexico border. Under this policy, asylum seekers without valid travel documents were turned away when ports of entry were deemed at capacity. Plaintiffs, including an immigrant rights organization and individual asylum seekers, argued that this policy unlawfully prevented them from applying for asylum. They also challenged the subsequent application of the "Asylum Transit Rule," which required asylum seekers to apply for asylum in a third country before seeking it in the U.S., to those turned away under the metering policy.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found the metering policy unlawful under § 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which mandates that courts compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed. The court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the application of the Asylum Transit Rule to those turned away under the metering policy before the rule took effect. The court also ordered the government to unwind past asylum denials based on the rule. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the APA § 706(1) and due process claims but did not reach the APA § 706(2) claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the metering policy violated § 706(1) of the APA, holding that noncitizens stopped at the border are eligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) and that border officials have a mandatory duty to inspect them under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. The court also affirmed the classwide declaratory relief but vacated the district court's judgment on the due process claim, deeming it unnecessary. The court affirmed the negative injunctive relief prohibiting the application of the Asylum Transit Rule to class members but vacated the portion of the injunction requiring the government to reopen or reconsider past asylum denials on its own initiative, as it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1). View "AL OTRO LADO V. AMAYORKAS" on Justia Law

A mother and her child from El Salvador sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. They claimed persecution by the M-18 gang, which had murdered the child's father, Carlos, and subsequently threatened their lives. After the father's murder, the gang members, including one of the convicted murderers, began following and threatening the child, Javi, demanding he join the gang or face death along with his family. The threats and subsequent break-in by armed men at their home led them to flee to the United States.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the mother’s testimony credible but denied their applications, concluding that the threats and harassment did not amount to past persecution and that the feared harm was due to generalized violence rather than a protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the experiences did not rise to the level of persecution and that the gang's motives were not sufficiently linked to the family's relationship to Carlos.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the threats and harassment, combined with the gang's capability and willingness to carry out the threats, constituted persecution. The court also found that the BIA erred in not considering the psychological harm suffered by Javi, who was diagnosed with PTSD, and in failing to account for his young age. Additionally, the court determined that the gang's motives included targeting Javi because of his relationship to Carlos, satisfying the nexus requirement for both asylum and withholding of removal.The Ninth Circuit granted the petition in part, recognizing the past persecution and the protected ground nexus, and remanded the case to the BIA to determine whether the persecution was by forces the government was unable or unwilling to control, or if there was a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "CORPENO-ROMERO V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A mother and her two minor children, who entered the United States seeking asylum, were scheduled for an initial hearing before an immigration judge (IJ) in Seattle, Washington. On their way to the hearing, they encountered two major car accidents, causing them to be two hours late. Upon arrival, they attempted to have their case heard but were unsuccessful. The IJ ordered them removed in absentia. They promptly moved to reopen the case, arguing that exceptional circumstances justified their late arrival.The IJ denied the motion, stating that ordinary traffic delays do not constitute exceptional circumstances and that the mother failed to make a prima facie case for asylum. The IJ did not address the minor children’s claims or their eligibility for derivative citizenship through their father. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, holding that the petitioners failed to establish exceptional circumstances and that the children did not demonstrate eligibility for adjustment of status through their newly naturalized father.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ and BIA abused their discretion by not considering the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that the petitioners did everything reasonably possible to attend their hearing, including leaving home early and documenting the extraordinary traffic caused by the accidents. The court also found that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the petitioners' lack of motive to evade the hearing and the unconscionable results of the in absentia removal order, particularly for the minor children eligible for derivative citizenship.The Ninth Circuit concluded that the facts amounted to exceptional circumstances warranting reopening of the in absentia removal order. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "MONTEJO-GONZALEZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Briseyda Meza Diaz and her minor daughter, Gabriela Segundo Meza, fled Mexico after experiencing severe violence and threats from cartel members. Meza Diaz's brother was murdered, her husband was kidnapped and tortured, and she received numerous death threats. In 2016, armed men invaded her home, beat her unconscious, and threatened her life. The local police, unable to ensure her safety, advised her to flee the country, which she did, seeking asylum in the United States.An Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Meza Diaz's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). They concluded that her experiences did not constitute past persecution and that she failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ and BIA also determined that the harm she suffered was not on account of a protected ground and that the Mexican government was not unable or unwilling to control her persecutors.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the record evidence compelled the conclusion that Meza Diaz experienced past persecution by forces that Mexican authorities are either unable or unwilling to control. The court held that the BIA erred by failing to consider key evidence, including the attackers' statements and the police report, which linked the harm to her family status. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings on Meza Diaz's claims of future persecution and withholding of removal. View "Diaz v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jaswinder Singh, a native of India, sought asylum in the United States, claiming persecution due to his political activities with the Mann Party, which advocates for a separate Sikh state. Singh testified that he was attacked twice by members of the opposition Indian National Congress Party (INC) in 2017 and faced threats and police inaction. He fled to the U.S. in 2018 and applied for asylum.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Singh's application, citing concerns about the credibility of his testimony due to similarities with other asylum seekers' declarations from India. The IJ also found that Singh could safely relocate within India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the adverse credibility determination and the internal relocation analysis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA and IJ misapplied Matter of R-K-K-, which allows for adverse credibility determinations based on strikingly similar affidavits in unrelated proceedings. The court held that the agency erred by relying solely on non-unique factual similarities without considering linguistic or grammatical cues that would suggest plagiarism. The court also noted due process concerns, as Singh could not meaningfully address the redacted declarations used against him.Additionally, the court found that the agency's internal relocation analysis was flawed. The government failed to prove that Singh could safely engage in Mann Party activities outside of Punjab. The IJ's conclusions were based on speculation and did not adequately consider the potential for persecution by local authorities or other actors in different regions of India.The Ninth Circuit granted Singh's petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for a renewed credibility determination and a more individualized analysis of the feasibility of internal relocation. View "SINGH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Christian Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was brought to the United States by his mother at the age of two to escape domestic violence from his father. Lopez lived in the U.S. without lawful status for thirteen years before obtaining T-5 nonimmigrant status in 2013. In 2017, he inadvertently allowed his T-5 status to expire. In 2019, Lopez was arrested and later convicted of multiple offenses, including four counts of petit larceny under the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) § 8.10.040. Following his release from prison, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him.An immigration judge (IJ) found Lopez removable for committing crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that Lopez's asylum application was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between his fear of future harm and any protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that Lopez's municipal convictions involved CIMTs and that he did not qualify for an exception to the asylum filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Lopez's petition for review. The court held that Lopez's petit larceny convictions under RMC § 8.10.040 are CIMTs, making him removable. The court also concluded that the BIA's interpretation of the statute regarding CIMTs was entitled to respect under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Additionally, the court found that the lack of availability of a pardon for a conviction does not render the conviction an improper basis for removal. Finally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal, as Lopez did not demonstrate that he would face future persecution in Mexico based on his identity as his mother's son. View "LOPEZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Oswaldo Favio Dominguez Ojeda, a native and citizen of Peru, faced reinstatement of a prior removal order by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2023. He expressed fear of returning to Peru, citing multiple incidents of harm and threats from members of the political group Peru Libre. An asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear screening interview but determined that Dominguez Ojeda did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Dominguez Ojeda sought review of this negative determination.The matter was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for a reasonable fear review hearing. During this hearing, Dominguez Ojeda attempted to introduce new evidence, including claims of being raped by Peru Libre members and country conditions reports. The IJ refused to consider this new evidence, mistakenly believing that he lacked the discretion to review evidence not initially presented to the asylum officer. The IJ cited the case Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, which allows an IJ to exercise discretion in considering new evidence, but still concluded that he could not review the new evidence. Consequently, the IJ upheld the asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ committed legal error by failing to exercise discretion regarding the consideration of new evidence. The court clarified that while an IJ is not required to consider new evidence at a reasonable fear hearing, the IJ must exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject such evidence. The Ninth Circuit granted Dominguez Ojeda’s petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the IJ to properly exercise discretion in considering the new evidence. View "OJEDA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Zohaib Zia, a citizen of Pakistan, entered the United States as a conditional permanent resident based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, Anum Haq. After their marriage ended in divorce, Zia sought a waiver to remove the conditions on his residency, claiming the marriage was entered into in good faith. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his petition, finding the marriage was not in good faith, and terminated his conditional status. The Department of Homeland Security then issued a notice to appear, charging him as removable. Zia renewed his petition before an Immigration Judge (IJ), who also denied it, citing an adverse credibility finding and insufficient evidence of a good faith marriage.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the adverse credibility determination and finding the remaining evidence insufficient to prove a good faith marriage. Zia appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the BIA erred in its findings and that his due process rights were violated due to an incomplete hearing transcript.The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the adverse credibility finding, as such factual determinations are unreviewable under Patel v. Garland. The court also found that while it had limited jurisdiction to review the good faith marriage determination as a mixed question of fact and law, the BIA's decision was not in error. The court concluded that Zia's testimony was of little weight due to the adverse credibility finding, and the remaining evidence did not compel a reversal. Additionally, the court rejected Zia's due process claim, finding no prejudice from the incomplete transcript. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part. View "ZIA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law