Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner's CAT claim was based on the physical abuse she experienced by her former domestic partner in Jamaica.The panel held that the record does not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that petitioner will suffer future torture if returned to Jamaica. In this case, a Jamaican court issued a protective order and the former partner has left her household. The panel also held that the IJ appropriately considered all of petitioner's evidence, including her country reports and whether she could safely relocate if returned to Jamaica. The panel explained that the circumstances of Jamaican women in general do not vitiate the agency's specific findings as to petitioner's situation with her former partner. While country conditions include generalized domestic violence against women, the panel stated that this does not compel a conclusion that petitioner will more likely than not be subjected to violence from her former partner or his associates. View "Dawson v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant was found in the United States after having previously been removed under the expedited removal procedure of 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). Defendant was charged with reentry without permission after having been removed, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a).The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, rejecting defendant's claim that his 2016 expedited removal order was "fundamentally unfair" for lack of representation by counsel during the removal proceeding, as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and afforded by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and therefore was invalid. The court concluded that the Due Process Clause did not entitle defendant to counsel when apprehended at the border and promptly removed. Furthermore, the court rejected defendant's contention that the APA requires — as an additional procedural right in removal proceedings — that the alien have the opportunity to obtain counsel in expedited removal proceedings under section 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). View "United States v. Guzman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review challenging the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing an immigration judge's (IJ) grant of Petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction.In reversing the IJ's decision, the BIA concluded that Petitioner had not met the required "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard and ignored its own precedent when it overturned the IJ's grant of his application for cancellation of removal. The denied in part and dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the BIA did not commit legal error in concluding that Petitioner had not met his burden to show that his removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his family; (2) as to Petitioner's argument that the BIA's decision was legally unsound, his claim failed on the merits; and (3) this Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner's remaining arguments. View "Tacuri-Tacuri v. Garland" on Justia Law

Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national living in the U.S, was convicted in California state court of felony DUI in 1988. Lower courts then understood that conviction to be an “aggravated felony” subjecting a noncitizen to removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Palomar-Santiago was removed following a hearing and a waiver of his right to appeal. In 2017, Palomar-Santiago was found in the U.S and indicted for unlawful reentry after removal. Section 1326, criminalizing unlawful reentry, provides that a collateral challenge to the underlying deportation order may proceed only if the noncitizen first demonstrates that “any administrative remedies that may have been available” were exhausted, “the opportunity for judicial review” was lacking, and “the order was fundamentally unfair.” Palomar-Santiago argued that his prior removal order was invalid in light of the 2004 “Leocal” holding, that felony DUI is not an aggravated felony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the charges.A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. Each of the statutory requirements of section 1326(d) is mandatory; defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. The first two requirements are not satisfied just because a noncitizen was removed for an offense that should not have rendered him removable. An immigration judge’s error on the merits does not excuse the noncitizen’s failure to comply with a mandatory exhaustion requirement if further administrative review, and then judicial review if necessary, could fix that error. Section 1326(d) unambiguously forecloses Palomar-Santiago’s interpretation. View "United States v. Palomar-Santiago" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the government in an action challenging USCIS's decision determining that plaintiff was ineligible for adjustment of status due to his membership in a Tier III terrorist organization—the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)—and his personal engagement in terrorist activity.The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff's inadmissibility under the terrorism bar was not actually litigated during the asylum proceeding, and rejected the issue preclusion claim. The court held that an organization engages in terrorist activity for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) when its members perpetrate terrorist activity and its leadership authorizes such conduct expressly or tacitly. In this case, as applied to plaintiff and the BNP, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. The court also concluded that plaintiff's vagueness challenge to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)(V)(b) & (VI) fails at the outset, because he intentionally relinquished any challenge to the definition of "terrorist activity" in the district court. Finally, the court applied the "exceedingly deferential" standard of review under section 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act and held that the USCIS's conclusion that the BNP authorized its members' terrorist activity—and thus qualified as a Tier III terrorist organization—is not arbitrary and capricious. View "Islam v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that petitioner's conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering plainly constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(D). Section 1101(a)(43)(D) defines "aggravated felony" to include those offenses that are "described in section 1956 of Title 18 (relating to laundering of monetary instruments) . . . if the amount of funds exceeded $10,000." The court concluded that this provision applies here because petitioner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), and the funds involved well exceeded $10,000. The court need not decide petitioner's contention that section 1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The court found petitioner's remaining contentions were either meritless or unexhausted. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part his petition for review. View "Maniar v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2010, Figueroa, a citizen of Honduras, entered the U.S. unlawfully. He told an asylum officer, Figueroa stated that his father, uncle, and cousins were killed in Honduras and that he feared their killers would also kill him; he referred to rivals seeking to seize his father’s land and to his father reporting his sister’s rape by gang members. After his removal, Figueroa reentered the U.S. in 2012. DHS reinstated Figueroa’s prior removal order. This time Figueroa attributed the deaths of his family members to the gang responsible for raping his sister. He claimed that his father was involved in anti-gang political activities, that the gang once beat him, and that the gang continued to threaten him and his family. He produced police reports and testified that those reports never resulted in arrests. The IJ denied found that Figueroa faced a clear probability of future harm in Honduras due to his membership in a particular social group (his family) but that such harm from private actors would not constitute persecution or torture. The BIA determined that Figueroa did not establish either that the Honduran government was “unable or unwilling to control” the gang, or that the government “condoned the private actions or at least demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect [him].”The Third Circuit denied relief, noting that Figueroa might be a fugitive disentitled to relief. In denying his application for statutory withholding of removal, the agency did not err in treating the unable-or-unwilling-to-control test and the condone-or-complete helplessness test as legal equivalents. Figueroa did not demonstrate the requisite connection between the gang’s acts and the government. Substantial evidence supports the BIA conclusion, in denying CAT protection, that Honduran police would investigate reports from Figueroa, so he failed to establish governmental acquiescence to torture. View "Figueroa v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the Board's final order denying petitioner's request to reconsider the Board's November 14, 2016, denial of his derivative citizenship claim. The panel concluded that petitioner does not meet the third condition of 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) and does not automatically derive U.S. citizenship from his father. The panel explained that Congress did not intend for this type of nunc pro tunc order, one untethered from the facts as they were during petitioner's childhood, to give rise to automatic derivative citizenship under section 1432(a). The panel rejected the expansive view of nunc pro tunc power; agreed with the First and the Fifth Circuits that a strictly federal ground provides a basis for rejecting petitioner's argument; and also agreed with the First and the Fifth Circuits that "recognizing the nunc pro tunc order in the present case would in substance allow the state court to create loopholes in the immigration laws on grounds of perceived equity or fairness."Therefore, the panel held that where it has not been proven that a custody order was entered in error, was contrary to law, or otherwise did not reflect the true legal relationship between a petitioner's parents, a nunc pro tunc order cannot retroactively establish a naturalized parent's sole legal custody for the purposes of section 1432(a). The panel concluded that the 2013 state court order that purportedly nunc pro tunc modified petitioner's parents' 1990 custody arrangement did not retroactively transfer sole legal custody to petitioner's father for the purposes of section 1432(a). View "Padilla Carino v. Garland" on Justia Law

The en banc court held that the second clause of the derivative citizenship statute set out at former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(5) does not require that the child have been granted lawful permanent residency prior to the age of eighteen in order to derive citizenship from a parent who naturalized, but the child must have demonstrated an objective official manifestation of permanent residence.The en banc court concluded that the Cheneau panel properly concluded that it was bound under circuit precedent by Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2008). Furthermore, the panel properly highlighted the problems in applying the Romero-Ruiz analysis of section 1432(a)(5) in the present context. In reconsidering Romero-Ruiz, the en banc court agreed with Judge Bennett's concurring opinion that Romero-Ruiz must be overruled to the extent that it interpreted "reside permanently" to require lawful permanent resident status. The en banc court remanded to the three-judge panel so that the panel may, in its discretion, apply the revised rule to this case. View "Cheneau v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging petitioner's order of removal after he threatened to commit a religiously motivated act of terrorism. Petitioner, who suffers from schizophrenia, was reported by his brother after petitioner made threats of killing kuffars (non-believers).The court concluded that the Attorney General interpreted 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iv) correctly as a matter of law. The Attorney General first determined that the plain meaning of "reasonable grounds" comports with the well-established standard for "probable cause." The Attorney General then determined that "a danger to the security of the United States" means "[a]ny level of danger to national security . . . ; it need not be a 'serious,' 'significant,' or 'grave' danger." Therefore, petitioner is ineligible for asylum under section 1158(b)(2)(A)(iv). The court also held that the BIA's determination that petitioner was a threat to national security was supported by substantial evidence as a matter of fact. View "Mirza v. Garland" on Justia Law