Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, a husband and wife from Guatemala, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. They argued that their removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen children. The IJ found that the petitioners did not meet this hardship requirement, despite finding them otherwise eligible for cancellation of removal. The IJ's decision was based on the conclusion that the children would not suffer the requisite level of hardship if the family relocated to Guatemala.The IJ's decision was appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's findings. The BIA agreed with the IJ that the petitioners had not demonstrated that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children. The BIA reviewed the IJ's factual findings for clear error and found none, particularly regarding the health and well-being of the petitioners' son, A.B.M., who had experienced past trauma and had ongoing health issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA had legally erred by failing to consider key evidence, specifically a psychological report detailing the mental health status of A.B.M. The court held that the BIA must consider all relevant evidence in the record when reviewing the IJ's findings for clear error. The First Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to adequately consider the full record, including the psychological report, in its determination. View "Blanco Contreras v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jordan Pulido developed an online relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl, I.G., and, with the help of his father, Roberto Jimenez, traveled to Croatia to have sex with her. They later brought her to the United States, where Pulido continued to have sex with her. Pulido was indicted on multiple counts, including using the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transporting a minor for sexual activity. Jimenez was indicted for conspiring to transport a minor for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Pulido's pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and exclude testimony. Both defendants were convicted on all counts after a nine-day trial. Post-trial motions for acquittal, a new trial, and a mistrial were also denied. Jimenez received sentence enhancements for exercising undue influence and having custody or supervisory control over I.G.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions on most counts but vacated Pulido's conviction on the enticement count, finding the indictment duplicitous. The court held that the enticement count was not harmless and remanded for resentencing. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Pulido's motion to suppress evidence from his electronic devices, holding that the border search exception applied. Additionally, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the translation irregularities during I.G.'s mother's testimony.For Jimenez, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to transport I.G. for sexual activity. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a mistrial based on Agent Garcia's testimony about his immigration status, concluding that the curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice. Finally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody or supervisory control. View "U.S. v. Pulido" on Justia Law

The case involves the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. The President issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove these individuals. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against their removal under the Proclamation, initially seeking relief in habeas but later dismissing those claims.The District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing the removal of the named plaintiffs and a provisionally certified class of noncitizens subject to the Proclamation. The court extended the TROs for an additional 14 days. The D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders, leading the Government to seek vacatur from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States construed the TROs as appealable injunctions and granted the Government's application to vacate the orders. The Court held that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought in habeas corpus, as the claims necessarily imply the invalidity of the detainees' confinement and removal. The Court also determined that venue for such habeas petitions lies in the district of confinement, which in this case is Texas, making the District of Columbia an improper venue. The detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief in the proper venue before removal. The application to vacate the District Court's orders was granted, and the TROs were vacated. View "Trump v. J. G. G." on Justia Law

Muhammad Masood, a licensed physician from Pakistan, came to the United States in 2018 on a non-immigrant visa to work as an unpaid medical researcher. In 2019, he became radicalized by Islamic extremist content and planned to join ISIS. In March 2020, he was arrested at the Minneapolis airport with plans to travel to ISIS-controlled territory. A search revealed military and medical supplies, computers, and digital storage devices containing extremist propaganda. Masood pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Masood to 216 months imprisonment, varying downward from the statutory maximum of 240 months. Masood appealed, arguing procedural errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and alleged violations of his due process rights and right to allocution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in applying the terrorism enhancement, as the evidence supported that Masood's offense was intended to promote terrorism. The court also found that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Additionally, the court determined there was no violation of Rule 32(i) or the Due Process Clause, as Masood and his counsel were given opportunities to argue and allocute before the final sentence was imposed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Masood" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national filed two petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first petition challenges the BIA's January 2024 decision upholding the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition challenges the BIA's March 2024 denial of his motion to reopen his administrative proceedings to seek a continuance or administrative closure while his U visa petition is pending.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner in May 2022 for entering the United States without inspection. An immigration court found him removable and designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the CAT. The IJ denied his applications, finding that his proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of harm if removed to El Salvador. The BIA vacated and remanded for further findings, but the IJ again denied relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA may have endorsed the IJ's use of an improper "ocular visibility" standard in evaluating the social distinction of the petitioner's proposed PSG. The court also noted ambiguity in the BIA's analysis regarding the scope of the petitioner's PSG. Consequently, the court granted the first petition, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed the second petition as moot. The petitioner may renew his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection on remand. View "Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Walter Aceituno, a Guatemalan citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. In 2014, he pled guilty to drug-trafficking charges after being arrested in a sting operation involving the purchase of cocaine. His attorneys informed him that he would be deported as a result of his guilty plea, but did not explicitly state that he would be permanently barred from reentering the United States. Aceituno was deported in 2015 and later illegally reentered the U.S. in 2019, leading to further legal issues.The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted Aceituno's petition for a writ of error coram nobis, allowing him to withdraw his 2014 guilty plea. The district court found that Aceituno's attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform him of the permanent reentry bar, and that Aceituno acted reasonably in not seeking earlier relief due to his ongoing efforts to reunite with his family through various legal means.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Aceituno's attorneys met the requirements set forth in Padilla v. Kentucky by informing him of the risk of deportation. The court found that the district court erred in concluding that the attorneys were required to inform Aceituno of the permanent reentry bar. Additionally, the appellate court determined that Aceituno's delay in seeking relief was unreasonable and that the equities did not justify the issuance of the writ. The court emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the lack of compelling circumstances to warrant coram nobis relief. The writ was quashed, and the petition was dismissed. View "Aceituno v. United States" on Justia Law

Monika Kapoor, an Indian citizen, faces extradition from the United States to India to face criminal charges. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that Kapoor was extraditable under the bilateral extradition treaty between the U.S. and India. The Secretary of State issued a surrender warrant, rejecting Kapoor’s claims that she would likely be tortured if returned to India, which would violate the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Kapoor filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Secretary’s decision, but the district court denied her petition, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(4) from the REAL ID Act of 2005, which divested the court of jurisdiction to hear her claim. Kapoor appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court, stating that the Convention is not a self-executing treaty and that courts can review claims under it only as authorized by Congress. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s test in I.N.S v. St. Cyr, noting that Section 1252(a)(4) clearly states that claims under the Convention can only be raised in petitions for review of immigration removal orders and specifically bars judicial review of such claims in habeas proceedings, except in limited circumstances not applicable here.The Second Circuit held that this interpretation does not violate the Suspension Clause in the extradition context due to the longstanding rule of non-inquiry, which precludes American habeas courts from considering the anticipated treatment of an extraditee in the receiving country. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s decision, denying Kapoor’s petition. View "Kapoor v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

The appellants, Madhu Sudhan Kanapuram and Swathi Pillarisetty, are Indian citizens legally residing in the United States on temporary employment-based visas. They filed Form I-485 applications for adjustment of status to obtain EB-2 immigrant visas. Their applications were initially within the priority date cutoff, but due to a retrogression policy, the Final Action Date was pushed back, placing their applications outside the priority cutoff date. After waiting 19 months without a decision, they filed a lawsuit alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by unlawfully withholding and unreasonably delaying the adjudication of their applications.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the case, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review of claims asserting delays in the adjudication of pending Form I-485 applications. The appellants then sought review of this dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 applications because the statute grants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS broad discretion over the adjustment of status process. The court concluded that the decision to delay adjudication due to the retrogression policy falls within this discretionary authority. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's order of dismissal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellants' APA claims. View "SudhanKanapuram v. Director, US Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

A petitioner, Kathya Roxana Duarte De Martinez, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Duarte argued that her removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her minor son, A.M., who has an intellectual disability. She claimed that A.M. would be deprived of educational services in El Salvador due to his inability to learn Spanish, which would severely impact his development and social functioning.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially heard the case, finding Duarte and her husband credible but ultimately concluding that the hardship to A.M. and his brother did not meet the high statutory standard. The IJ noted that A.M. could attend a special education program in El Salvador, which was affordable for the family. Duarte appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision, stating that the availability of special education services in El Salvador, even if inferior, did not constitute exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The BIA also noted that language barriers are common hardships and found no clear error in the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA failed to consider A.M.'s specific circumstances, including his severe language impairment and the impact of his disabilities on his ability to learn Spanish. The court held that the agency did not undertake the required individualized inquiry into whether A.M. would be deprived of all schooling or an opportunity to obtain any education. The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Duarte De Martinez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Fu Jing Wu and Wai Lam set up investment funds for foreign investors, promising opportunities to immigrate to the United States through the EB-5 visa program. They fraudulently diverted millions of dollars from these funds. An investor, Chun Liu, sued them in a Florida court. Wu and Lam removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration based on a purchase agreement. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida reviewed the case. The court found that Wu was not a signatory to the purchase agreement containing the arbitration clause and thus could not enforce it. Consequently, the court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act and remanded the case to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred appellate review of the district court's order that both denied the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that the denial of the motion to compel arbitration was intrinsic to the jurisdictional decision and could not be reviewed separately. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Wu and Lam’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Wu v. Liu" on Justia Law