Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, Emerson Levi Godoy-Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2009 as a permanent resident. In 2015, he was charged and subsequently convicted under California Penal Code (CPC) § 136.1(c)(1) for dissuading a witness by force or threat. He was sentenced to 365 days in Los Angeles County Jail. Following his conviction, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security served him with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability for having committed an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), relating to obstruction of justice.An Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Godoy-Aguilar's conviction under CPC § 136.1(c)(1) constituted an aggravated felony of obstruction of justice and issued a removal order. Godoy-Aguilar appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal, concluding that the state offense categorically fell within the federal definition of an offense relating to obstruction of justice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court analyzed whether CPC § 136.1(c)(1) is a categorical match for the generic federal offense of an aggravated felony relating to obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). The court concluded that CPC § 136.1(c)(1) is indeed a categorical match, as it involves specific intent conduct aimed at obstructing justice, and no pending investigation or proceeding is required. The court found that the elements of the underlying crimes in CPC § 136.1(a)(1)-(2) and (b)(1)-(3) do not sweep more broadly than the generic federal offense. Consequently, the court held that Godoy-Aguilar's conviction and sentence constituted an aggravated felony relating to obstruction of justice and denied the petition for review. View "GODOY-AGUILAR V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Lucila Magana-Magana, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States unlawfully in 1995. She faced a series of abusive relationships, including with Rafael Camacho and later Clyde Wakefield, whom she married in 2017. Wakefield's abuse led to their separation and eventual divorce. In 2007, Magana-Magana was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol, and the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. She applied for cancellation of removal, citing hardship to her U.S. citizen children, but her request was denied by an immigration judge (IJ) and later by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Her appeal to the Ninth Circuit was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.In January 2022, Magana-Magana filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her removal proceedings, citing new evidence of abuse by Wakefield and her application for benefits under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The BIA denied her motion, stating it was untimely and that she had not demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" to waive the one-year filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination of "extraordinary circumstances" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)(III), as it involved applying a legal standard to undisputed facts. The court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the abuse suffered by Magana-Magana did not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and that there was no basis to conclude that such circumstances caused the delay in filing her motion. The court also rejected her other arguments, including her unexhausted equitable-tolling claim and the BIA's discretionary decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "MAGANA-MAGANA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, arrived in the United States without documentation in May 2013 and sought asylum, claiming persecution due to his political opinions and association with the Mann Party. An immigration judge (IJ) found inconsistencies in Singh's testimony regarding his political affiliations and the circumstances of his father's death, leading to an adverse credibility determination. Consequently, the IJ denied Singh's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, and the Ninth Circuit denied Singh's petition for review.In July 2021, Singh filed a motion to reopen his case, citing new fears of persecution due to India's passage of agricultural reform laws. He claimed eligibility for relief based on his religion as a Sikh, his membership in a particular social group of farmers, and his political opinions opposing the new laws. Singh submitted new evidence, including a sworn statement detailing threats and assaults against his family by the police and members of the BJP Party, medical records, photos of protests, land ownership papers, and news articles about the persecution of farmers and Sikhs.The BIA denied Singh's motion to reopen, concluding that the new evidence was immaterial due to the prior adverse credibility determination. The BIA found that Singh's new affidavit and documentary evidence did not sufficiently establish an individualized risk of persecution or torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA improperly relied on the prior adverse credibility determination to discredit Singh's new evidence. The court held that the BIA must credit evidence supporting a motion to reopen unless the facts asserted are inherently unbelievable. The Ninth Circuit granted Singh's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to address Singh's new factual assertions independently of the prior adverse credibility finding. View "SINGH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Vitaliy Chmukh, a native and citizen of Ukraine, came to the United States as a refugee in 2001. In 2017, he was involved in using a stolen vehicle to steal packages from porches, leading to his arrest. He pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen vehicle under RCW § 9A.56.068 and possession of heroin under RCW § 69.50.4013. He was sentenced to 43 months for the stolen vehicle charge and 24 months for the controlled substance charge, serving 38 months in total.The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged Chmukh with removability based on these convictions, alleging that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) and that the controlled substance conviction violated the Controlled Substances Act. An immigration judge (IJ) found him removable and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that the stolen vehicle conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that Chmukh’s conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) because it matched the generic federal offense of possession of stolen property, requiring possession, actual knowledge that the property was stolen, and intent to deprive the owner of the property. The court also found that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, barring withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B). The court rejected Chmukh’s arguments that the statute was overbroad and that the agency erred in its analysis. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Chmukh’s petition for review. View "CHMUKH V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

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