Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Cruz, a native of El Salvador, grew up in a neighborhood dominated by the 18th Street gang. A rival gang, MS-13, sought to recruit Cruz and his friends as “spies” to relay information about 18th Street activities. After they refused, MS-13 threatened and assaulted them. MS-13 members murdered Cruz’s friend. Later that week, one of them told Cruz “if [he] was just as stupid as Brian, then the same thing would happen.” Cruz fled El Salvador and was apprehended near Hidalgo, Texas. In his deportation proceeding, Cruz sought asylum based on his fear of gang violence if he returned home. While his asylum application was pending, MS-13 killed one of Cruz’s friend, while 18th Street killed another. Both gangs extorted protection money from Cruz’s mother. When she missed a payment, 18th Street members broke into her house, beat her, and threatened to rape Cruz’s sister. While the Immigration Judge found Cruz’s testimony credible, she denied Cruz’s asylum application because Cruz failed to establish that he faced this persecution “on account of” a protected ground (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A)). The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. Cruz did not establish a connection between his “well-founded fear of persecution” and his membership in a particular social group. View "Cruz-Guzman v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner and his family members relief from removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum where, although petitioner had suffered past persecution for his religion and political opinion, DHS rebutted the presumption of future persecution by showing that the circumstances have fundamentally changed. In this case, by showing that harm based on religious views and political activism turned into mere harm based on extortion, DHS sufficiently showed that the circumstances have fundamentally changed and that petitioner and his family no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of petitioner's political opinion. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims. View "Singh v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's motion to administratively close or remand to the IJ, and denying petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider the first denial. The court held that the BIA's substantial discussion of the statutory and regulatory bases for using a substitute IJ were sufficient.The court held that reopening a case should not be granted unless the alien has met the heavy burden of showing that the new evidence presented would likely change the result in the case. The court held that the BIA applied the correct legal standard in reviewing petitioner's request to submit additional hardship evidence. The court also held that the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's motion to remand in an April order. However, the court remanded for clarification of the BIA's rationale for denying the motion to open in the December order. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Caballero-Martinez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. Because petitioner's in absentia proceedings occurred in 1993, the court applied the notice requirements set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1252b.Applying the traditional tools of interpretation to section 1252b(a)(1)(F)(i), the court held that an alien must provide a U.S. address for receiving written notice regarding his deportation proceedings. In this case, petitioner failed to provide an address to the immigration court and thus the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his appeal. View "Ramos-Portillo v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals explained in this opinion its reasons underlying its December 7, 2018 order, in which the Court issued an order reversing the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion for an order that included all requisite "Special Immigrant Juvenile" (SIJ) status findings, holding that the circuit court applied a far too demanding and rigid standard in this case.In a proceeding before the circuit court, Petitioner sought sole custody of his seventeen-year-old son (Child), an undocumented minor and Guatemalan native. Petitioner further requested that the circuit court issue an order containing factual findings illustrating Child's eligibility for SIJ status, namely that reunification with Child's mother was not viable due to neglect. The circuit court granted Petitioner custody of Child but concluded that Petitioner failed to establish that reunification with the mother was not viable due to neglect. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that returning Child to the custody of the mother, who inadequately cared for and supervised him, could not be a reunification that was viable. View "Romero v. Perez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioner alleged that she never received a notice of hearing. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by determining that petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of receipt of effective service. In this case, the BIA reached a final determination based on the totality of the circumstances where various circumstances -- including no non-deliverable return, no prior affirmative applications for relief, and lack of due diligence -- weighed in favor of the presumption of receipt. View "Navarrete-Lopez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Eighth Circuit held that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence where a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that the Guatemalan government was and would be unwilling or unable to protect petitioner against her daughter's father. Because petitioner failed to establish her eligibility for asylum, she also failed to establish withholding of removal. Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's denial of CAT relief because there was no evidence in the record that if petitioner were returned to Guatemala the government would torture her or be willfully blind to her torture at the hands of her daughter's father. View "Juarez-Coronado v. Barr" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal of the IJ's denial of relief from removal. The BIA held that petitioner's conviction of robbery in the third degree in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes section 164.395 was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and petitioner failed to prove membership in a particular social group for the purpose of establishing refugee status.The Ninth Circuit held that section 164.395 is not categorically a CIMT, because the minimal force required for conviction was insufficient and the government waived the issue of divisibility. However, the panel held that petitioner failed to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, because "individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be wealthy" was not a discrete class of persons recognized as a particular social group. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part, denied it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Barbosa v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioner did not suffer past persecution because his previous mistreatment from an Ayr customer did not rise to the level of persecution; petitioner failed to prove a well-founded fear of future persecution because he could not establish that others would persecute him or that there was a pattern or practice of targeting people like him; petitioner was not entitled to CAT relief because he failed to prove it was more likely than not government actors would torture him in Somalia; the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings; and the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reconsider. View "Qorane v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal granted Reyna Hernandez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to have her conviction for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale vacated and the opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea. The record both showed her appointed trial counsel failed to advise her before she entered her guilty plea that her plea would subject her to mandatory deportation, and contained evidence, including contemporaneous objective evidence, she would not have entered her guilty plea had she been so advised. The Court of Appeal published this opinion because it discussed evidence establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, including prejudice, for failure to advise of mandatory deportation consequences attached to a guilty plea. View "In re Hernandez" on Justia Law