Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is a Canadian citizen, pleaded guilty in 2003 to one count of health care fraud after participating in a scheme involving fraudulent prescriptions and false Medicaid/Medi-Cal billing. The conviction, which involved a loss exceeding $10,000, rendered him removable from the United States. He claimed that his attorneys gave him incorrect or incomplete advice regarding the immigration consequences of his plea. Despite being informed by both the sentencing judge in 2003 and a U.S. immigration official in 2007 that his conviction could lead to removal, he did not seek to vacate his conviction until many years later.After removal proceedings began in 2008, the defendant waited until 2016 to file his first petition for a writ of coram nobis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the petition due to unreasonable delay, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial in 2020, finding the delay between 2014 and 2016 unjustified. The first petition focused on the conduct of the attorney who represented him at sentencing.In 2021, the defendant filed a second coram nobis petition in the same district court, this time alleging ineffective assistance by three different attorneys, including the one who handled his first petition. The district court denied the second petition, finding it barred by laches due to prejudicial delay, as key witnesses had died and evidence had been lost. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government was prejudiced by the delay and that the defendant failed to show reasonable diligence in seeking relief, given that he was on notice of the immigration consequences years earlier. View "USA V. KROYTOR" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan national entered the United States without authorization after fleeing gang violence in his home country. He sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but an immigration judge denied these requests and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, which clarified the requirements for a valid “notice to appear,” the petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings to seek voluntary departure, a form of relief that would allow him to leave the United States without a formal removal order. To qualify, he needed to show, among other things, that he had the means to depart the country, typically by possessing a valid passport.The Board of Immigration Appeals denied his motion to reopen, finding that his affidavit—stating only that he was in the process of renewing his Guatemalan passport—was too conclusory and unsupported by documentary evidence. The Board concluded that he had not sufficiently demonstrated that he would be able to depart the United States if granted voluntary departure.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Board’s denial. The court held that the Board applied the correct legal standard, requiring only a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief at the motion-to-reopen stage, not conclusive proof. The court found that the Board did not err in determining that the petitioner’s unsupported and conclusory statement about his passport application failed to meet even this threshold. The Sixth Circuit therefore denied the petition for review, upholding the Board’s decision. View "Pastor-Hernandez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Nigerian citizen sought relief from removal in the United States, claiming he faced persecution in Nigeria due to his ethnicity and membership in a separatist political organization. He described several violent incidents involving Nigerian police, including arrests, assaults, and threats to his life. After leaving Nigeria, he entered the United States on a visitor visa and subsequently married a U.S. citizen, later applying for adjustment of status based on that marriage. However, both he and his spouse admitted to immigration authorities that the marriage was fraudulent and entered into for immigration purposes, with the petitioner paying his spouse for the arrangement.The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his adjustment application and a subsequent petition under the Violence Against Women Act, finding insufficient evidence of a bona fide marriage. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with overstaying his visa and committing marriage fraud. During removal proceedings before an Immigration Judge, the petitioner denied the marriage was fraudulent and claimed his prior admission was coerced. The Immigration Judge found him not credible, primarily due to the marriage fraud and his inconsistent statements, and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the adverse credibility finding and denial of relief, remanding only for further analysis of his fear of future persecution, which was again rejected after additional evidence was submitted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied the petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination based on the petitioner’s deliberate deception of immigration authorities, even though the fraud was not directly related to his persecution claim. The court clarified that such intentional deception can, by itself, support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances, and the record did not compel a contrary conclusion. The denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and the motion to remand was affirmed. View "ANI V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A woman from Honduras and her two minor sons fled their home country after the murder of her partner, Arturo Robles, by a man named Jonis, who was associated with a gang. Following the murder, Jonis threatened the woman and her children, specifically targeting those related to Arturo. The woman reported these threats to the police, but they failed to act, which she attributed to their ties with gangs. Fearing for their safety, she and her children entered the United States unlawfully in 2014 and sought asylum, arguing that their persecution was due to their membership in Arturo’s nuclear family.After removal proceedings began, an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted asylum in 2014, finding the woman and her brother credible and concluding that her family relationship was a central reason for the threats. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further factfinding. In 2019, after additional hearings and evidence, the IJ again granted asylum, finding that the threats were motivated by the family relationship, that the woman could not safely relocate within Honduras, and that the government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The government appealed again, and in 2023, a three-judge BIA panel vacated the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s 2023 order. The court held that the BIA misapplied the clear-error standard required by regulation when reviewing the IJ’s factual findings. The Tenth Circuit found that the IJ’s findings on nexus, internal relocation, and government protection were permissible and not clearly erroneous. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded with instructions to reinstate the IJ’s grant of asylum. View "Ramos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A family from Colombia, consisting of two adults and their minor children, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States. They had been active members of the Colombian Liberal Party and participated in political campaigning. After receiving threatening phone calls related to their political activities, the family continued their involvement. Subsequently, the father, who was a provisional lawyer and intern at the National Prosecutor’s office, became involved in a property dispute with a man known as Don Rafa, a leader of a narco-trafficking group. Following this, the family received further threats, including armed confrontations and threats against their children, which they attributed to Don Rafa and his associates. The family relocated within Colombia briefly before departing for the United States.After arriving in the United States, the Department of Homeland Security charged the family as removable. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the family credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ concluded that the harm suffered did not amount to past persecution, lacked a nexus to a statutorily protected ground, and that internal relocation within Colombia was reasonably available. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal, also rejecting the family’s due process claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision under a substantial-evidence standard. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate past persecution, a nexus to a protected ground, or that the Colombian government was unable or unwilling to protect them. The court also found that the record did not show the family could not safely relocate within Colombia. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Jimenez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging an executive order that denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and whose mothers are present in the country either unlawfully or only temporarily. The organizations alleged that they have members who are expecting children affected by the order, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that the plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims, and that the equitable factors favored granting relief. It issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the executive order against the plaintiffs and their members, but not against nonparties. The government appealed the scope and propriety of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal issues and clear error review of factual findings. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. However, the First Circuit vacated the injunction to the extent that it ran directly against the President and the agencies themselves, holding that injunctive relief should be limited to agency officials. The court affirmed the injunction as applied to the organizations’ members who are likely to be harmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, issued in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States after its effective date if their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and their mothers are either unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Plaintiffs include individual immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and a coalition of states and local governments. They allege that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Order.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary injunctions to both sets of plaintiffs, finding they were “exceedingly likely” to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a). The injunctions barred federal agencies and officials from enforcing the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and, in the case brought by the states, issued a nationwide injunction to provide complete relief. The government appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of the injunctions, and the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs have Article III standing and are likely to succeed on the merits. The First Circuit held that the Executive Order’s denial of birthright citizenship to children born in the United States under the specified circumstances violates both the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), as interpreted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part, vacated them in part as to agency defendants, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Doe v. Trump" on Justia Law

A Haitian national entered the United States on a temporary visa in 2010 and was later charged with removability for overstaying his visa. After initially obtaining temporary protected status, which was extended for several years, his status was not renewed in 2018. He was subsequently arrested multiple times in New Hampshire between 2018 and 2020 for incidents involving domestic violence and resisting arrest, though not all arrests resulted in convictions. Following his last arrest, he was detained and removal proceedings were initiated. He sought adjustment of status through his wife, as well as cancellation of removal and other forms of relief.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable and denied his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. The IJ found the testimonies of the petitioner and his wife credible but inconsistent regarding the details of the arrests, and gave more weight to police reports, which were considered closer in time to the events. The IJ denied adjustment of status as a matter of discretion, citing the negative factors reflected in the police reports, and found the petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal due to insufficient continuous physical presence, as his notice to appear was served less than two years after his arrival.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, holding that the police reports were reliable and their use was not fundamentally unfair, and that the IJ could consider evidence of criminal conduct not resulting in conviction. The BIA also found the notice to appear sufficient to stop the accrual of continuous presence. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the BIA erred by failing to determine whether the police reports were corroborated before giving them substantial weight in denying adjustment of status. The court vacated the BIA’s order as to adjustment of status and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the denial of cancellation of removal. View "Maurice v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Nigerian citizen who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2005 was placed in removal proceedings after being convicted of conspiracy to commit passport fraud. He had lived in the U.S. for many years, had a long-term partner, and was the father of four U.S. citizen children. His conviction stemmed from a scheme to obtain fraudulent U.S. passports for noncitizens, for which he was sentenced to 27 months in prison. After serving his sentence and briefly fleeing to Canada, he was returned to the U.S. and charged as inadmissible for committing a crime involving moral turpitude. In removal proceedings, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming past persecution and fear of future harm in Nigeria due to his former union activities and threats from a militia group.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him inadmissible, denied all forms of relief, and determined that his conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, barring asylum and withholding. The IJ also found his and his partner’s testimony not credible and denied CAT relief, concluding he had not shown a likelihood of torture with government acquiescence. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing with the IJ’s findings and further holding that the absence of an interpreter did not violate due process, that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, and that he was not eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA misapplied the legal standard for determining a particularly serious crime by failing to consider the elements of the underlying substantive offense in the conspiracy conviction. The court also found that the BIA did not properly analyze the CAT claim under the required legal framework and failed to consider eligibility for a waiver of inadmissibility. The court denied the due process claim but vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, ordering a stay of removal pending the outcome. View "Amos v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law