Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The federal government entered final removal orders against about 1,000 Iraqi nationals in 2017, and has detained them or will detain them. Most remain in the U.S. due to diplomatic difficulties preventing their return to Iraq. The district court certified three subclasses: (1) primary class members without individual habeas petitions who are or will be detained by ICE, (2) those in the first subclass who are also subject to final removal orders, and (3) those in the first subclass whose motions to reopen their removal proceedings have been granted and who are being held under a statute mandating their detention. The Sixth Circuit previously vacated two preliminary injunctions, citing lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) and (f)(1). One prevented the removal of certain Iraqi nationals; another required bond hearings for each class member who had been detained for at least six months. A third injunction requires the government to release all primary subclass members, those in the first subclass, once the government has detained them for six months, no matter the statutory authority under which they were held. The district court concluded that the class members showed that the government was unlikely to repatriate them to Iraq in the reasonably foreseeable future and that the government “acted ignobly.” The Sixth Circuit vacated the injunction. Congress stripped all courts, except the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to enjoin or restrain the operation of 8 U.S.C. 1221–1232 on a class-wide basis. View "Hamama v. Adducci" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegal reentry by a previously deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326, and the revocation of supervised release. Defendant argued that he should have automatically become a United States citizen as a result of the naturalization of one of his parents prior to the reentry at issue. However, because his parents were married, and the derivative citizenship statute at 8 U.S.C. 1432(a) required married parents to both naturalize to confer citizenship to their child, he did not become a citizen. Defendant claimed that, by making his parents' marital status a factor in the derivative citizenship determination, section 1432(a) violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.The panel held that rational basis review applies to section 1432(a) for reasons separate and apart from those relied on in Barthelemy v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2003). Furthermore, Barthelemy's holding that section 1432(a) is rational is not irreconcilable with Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017). Therefore, the panel was still bound by that portion of Barthelemy's reasoning and by its ultimate holding that section 1432(a) is constitutional. Even if the panel were not bound by the holding in Barthelemy, the panel concluded that section 1432(a) is rational because protecting the parental rights of the non-citizen parent is plainly a legitimate legislative purpose. View "United States v. Mayea-Pulido" on Justia Law

Simental-Galarza unlawfully entered the U.S. in 2001. He married a U.S. citizen in 2013; they divorced three years later. Simental-Galarza was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for having entered and remained without lawful admission. Simental-Galarza sought cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), alleging that his removal would result in extreme hardship. He offered evidence of physical, verbal, and psychological abuse and that the abuse left him depressed. His sister-in-law confirmed that since the divorce, Simental-Galarza rarely talked, never laughed, and did not trust people. A licensed clinical social worker diagnosed him with anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and dependent personality disorder and advised that he continue therapy in a stable, supportive environment. His parents are deceased and five siblings live here. He has steady work. His sister-in-law predicted that if Simental-Galarza were removed, he would “shut down” and that Mexico did not have the mental health resources that are available here. The IJ rejected his claim. The BIA dismissed Simental-Galarza’s appeal, finding that he had not shown that he could not obtain work in Mexico and that, although Mexico can be violent, Simental-Galarza had not shown that he would personally face violence or “that he could not obtain treatment for his anxiety and depression.” The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. The IJ and BIA adequately evaluated the relevant factors and evidence. View "Simental-Galarza v. Barr" on Justia Law

Garcia‐Arce, a citizen of Mexico, was removed from the U.S. and illegally re‐entered. She was arrested for driving under the influence; her removal order was reinstated. Garcia‐Arce sought withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on her purported fear of persecution and torture. Garcia‐Arce testified that in her hometown she was sexually assaulted by her uncle and by a gang member to whom her brother “sold her.” An IJ noted that Garcia‐Arce presented a fake birth certificate at the border, made statements that she did not fear returning to Mexico, could avoid persecution by relocating within Mexico, and had not alleged that a Mexican official had acquiesced or would acquiesce in any torture. The BIA affirmed. Garcia‐Arce moved to reopen based on her attorney’s allegedly ineffective assistance in not properly advancing Garcia‐Arce’s claim that she would be persecuted upon return to Mexico as a result of her alleged mental illness and her CAT claim based on Mexican drug cartels and corrupt law enforcement. The BIA concluded that it was reasonable for the attorney to focus on Garcia‐Arce’s past mistreatment rather than on her mental health and that Garcia‐Arce had not shown that she suffered prejudice. The Seventh Circuit denied petitions for review. The denial of Garcia‐Arce’s withholding application was supported by substantial evidence. Garcia‐Arce’s counsel’s assistance was not so deficient that Garcia‐Arce was prevented from reasonably presenting her case. View "Garcia-Arce v. Barr" on Justia Law

Petitioner Adama Matumona was a native and citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He petitioned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision to deny his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Regarding asylum, Petitioner argued the BIA: (1) erred in determining that he had firmly resettled in Angola, which barred him from applying for asylum; and (2) engaged in improper factfinding in determining he was ineligible for an exception to the firm-resettlement bar. On withholding of removal, he argued the BIA improperly rejected his claims of past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. Furthermore, Petitioner contended his due-process rights and his statutory right to a fair hearing were violated by the failure of the immigration judge (IJ) to adequately develop the record and to implement appropriate safeguards for a pro se litigant detained in a remote facility. After review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed on all issues except that the Court remanded to the BIA to consider Petitioner’s claim that he was entitled to withholding of removal because of the alleged pattern or practice of the DRC government of persecuting persons with Petitioner’s political views. View "Matumona v. Barr" on Justia Law

An alien does not withdraw his appeal of a final removal order, including the appeal of the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider, simply because he was involuntarily removed before the appeal was decided.The Ninth Circuit held that petitioner's removal from the country while his appeal was pending before the BIA did not withdraw his appeal under 8 C.F.R. 1003.4. The panel explained that the withdrawal sanction in section 1003.4 is triggered by an alien's departure from this country; section 1003.1 does not distinguish between volitional and non-volitional departures; but the BIA has already recognized that the regulation does not apply every time a petitioner leaves this country. For example, an unlawful removal does not constitute a section 1003.4 departure. The panel agreed with the Sixth Circuit's holding in Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2009), that section 1003.4 applies only when the right to appeal is relinquished by the alien's own volitional conduct, not solely that of the government. The panel held that the Sixth Circuit's holding in Madrigal was consistent with its interpretation of a similar regulation. Finally, the panel held that petitioner did not otherwise waive his right to appeal. Accordingly, the panel granted the petition for review and remanded. View "Lopez-Angel v. Barr" on Justia Law

In 1975, Espichan was born in Peru. His father came to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1979. He got custody of Espichan in 1986 by a power of attorney signed by Espichan’s mother. In 1990, at the Callao, Peru police headquarters, Espichan’s mother filed a public declaration that she and Espichan’s father, having lived together since 1970, separated in 1979. Espichan’s father petitioned for him to come to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. Espichan, 14, arrived in 1990. That month, his father became a U.S. citizen. In 2016, Espichan was charged as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, subject to removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Espichan argued that he had acquired derivative citizenship through his father under 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3), the applicable law at the time, because his parents were legally separated at the time of his father’s naturalization. The IJ and BIA rejected this claim, finding “unequivocal evidence” that Espichan’s father “never held himself out to be married” to Espichan’s mother. The Third Circuit vacated and transferred the case to the district court. Espichan’s nationality claim presents a genuine issue of material fact: whether his parents were married. If the court finds that they were married, Espichan has satisfied section 1432(a)(3)–(5), has derivative citizenship, and may not be removed. View "Espichan v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, petitioner sought review of DHS's reinstatement of prior orders of removal and challenged the dismissal of related complaints that were filed in federal district court. The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review in the lead case and affirmed the district court's judgment in the consolidated cases.The court held that the district court properly dismissed petitioner's lawsuits in federal district court, based on lack of jurisdiction, where he sought review of DHS's reinstatement of the removal order and to compel DHS to adjudicate a motion to reopen; the relevant statute stated that a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of the order of removal; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's arguments concerning the validity of the underlying removal order; substantial evidence supported DHS's decision to reinstate the removal order, because petitioner conceded his identity, the existence of the removal order, and that he unlawfully reentered the United States; and there was no error in the IJ's determination that petitioner failed to show that he was eligible for withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture. View "Lara-Nieto v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an amended order granting a petition for review of the IJ's decision affirming an asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination in expedited removal proceedings.The panel held that non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 U.S.C. 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings before an immigration judge. In this case, the panel held that petitioner had a statutory right to counsel, the colloquy at the beginning of the hearing before the IJ was inadequate to waive that right, and no showing of prejudice is required. Therefore, the panel held that the IJ violated petitioner's right to counsel in his reasonable fear review proceeding by failing to obtain a valid waiver, and petitioner was entitled to a new hearing before an IJ in which his right to counsel is honored. Accordingly, the panel reversed for further proceedings. View "Zuniga v. Barr" on Justia Law

In 1991, at age three, petitioner Karen Robles-Garcia was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor authorized to remain in this country for up to seventy-two hours and to travel within twenty-five miles of the Mexican border. She stayed longer and traveled further than permitted. In 2008, DHS served Robles-Garcia with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), the document that the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issues an immigrant to initiate removal proceedings, charging her with violating her visitor permissions from almost seventeen years earlier. Robles-Garcia admitted the five factual allegations charged in the NTA and conceded she was removable. But she applied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of her status, asserting that her removal would work an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on her two children, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D), who were U.S. citizens. Relying on Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), Robles-Garcia argued for the first time that the immigration judge who initially presided over her removal proceedings never acquired jurisdiction over those proceedings because DHS initiated those proceedings by serving Robles-Garcia with a defective Notice to Appear. Because Robles-Garcia had not yet made that argument to the IJ or the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), it was unexhausted and the Tenth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to address it. In addition, Robles-Garcia argued the BIA erred in concluding that she was ineligible to apply for discretionary cancellation of removal. The Tenth Circuit upheld that determination because Robles-Garcia was unable to show that a theft conviction was not a disqualifying crime involving moral turpitude. The Court therefore denied Robles-Garcia’s petition for review challenging the BIA’s determination that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal, and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to the extent that it asserted the Pereira question. View "Robles-Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law