Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

An individual entered the United States without authorization prior to 2018. After she was convicted in Illinois state court for possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, federal immigration authorities issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) against her under expedited procedures, and she was removed to Mexico in August 2018. Subsequently, she reentered the United States without authorization. She later obtained an amendment of her state conviction to simple possession, arguing the original charge overstated her conduct. Relying on this development, she requested that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reopen and cancel her prior removal order. A Deportation Officer in the Chicago Field Office responded by email, stating the office would not revisit the 2018 order.After the Deportation Officer declined to act, the individual petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to review the decision under 8 U.S.C. §1252(a). She characterized the email as a reviewable final order of removal. Meanwhile, DHS had not reinstated the 2018 removal order but had instead initiated new removal proceedings by issuing a Notice to Appear, beginning a new immigration process.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the petition because the email from the field office was not a “final order of removal” as defined by statute or relevant precedent. The court explained that the 2018 removal order was already executed and had not been reinstated, and that the petitioner was now subject to new removal proceedings. Because there was no reviewable order before it, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Velazquez-Olais v Blanche" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States government suspended the processing of Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) applications for the 2021 fiscal year. The State Department halted interviews and adjudication of diversity visa applications, and a presidential proclamation further restricted the entry of DV selectees. Processing resumed only after the proclamation was revoked, leaving many selectees unable to complete the process before the fiscal year ended. Some applicants in this group received visas and became lawful permanent residents, but others did not receive any meaningful response to their applications.Applicants who did not receive visas, as well as those who did, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. They challenged the State Department’s handling of the 2021 DV Program and sought, among other remedies, an injunction requiring the government to adjudicate their visa applications or preserve their eligibility beyond the fiscal year. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and ultimately dismissed the equitable claims as moot, finding that it could not grant relief after the fiscal year ended. The court also dismissed other claims—including requests for declaratory relief and nominal damages—for lack of standing, and denied the plaintiffs’ request to file supplemental briefing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that claims seeking preservation of visa eligibility were moot in light of prior circuit precedent, since courts cannot order visa processing beyond the relevant fiscal year. It also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing for their remaining claims because past injuries alone did not justify declaratory relief, nominal damages were barred by sovereign immunity, and equitable claims were foreclosed by precedent. The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying supplemental briefing. View "Gjoci v. DOS" on Justia Law

A Canadian citizen married an American citizen in 2017. The couple lived in Canada until 2020, then moved to Hawaii, where the American spouse began working as a physician. The Canadian spouse entered the United States on a tourist visa and soon applied for lawful permanent residency. To support this application, the American spouse signed a federal Affidavit of Support, committing to maintain the non-citizen’s income above 125% of the federal poverty line. The Canadian spouse obtained permanent residency in 2021. Around that time, the marriage ended, and the American spouse moved to Michigan and filed for divorce. In 2022, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and consented divorce judgment in Michigan, in which they resolved all issues—including spousal support—and released any claims against each other.The Canadian spouse later filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that his former spouse had failed to provide the financial support required by the Affidavit of Support. The former spouse moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that the divorce judgment precluded the claim. The district court rejected the jurisdictional argument but agreed that claim preclusion under Michigan law barred the lawsuit, and dismissed the action.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The court held that federal courts must give state court judgments the same preclusive effect they would have under state law, pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act. The court ruled that Michigan claim preclusion law applied, and that the prior divorce judgment barred the new lawsuit because the claim could have been raised in the divorce proceedings. The court also rejected arguments that federal law or preemption required a different result. View "Ramgoolam v. Gupta" on Justia Law

A woman born in Soviet Armenia immigrated to the United States as a child and was later convicted of grand theft in California. In 2011, she was ordered removed based on this conviction. However, because Armenia did not accept individuals born during the Soviet era, she was considered “stateless” and not deported. She lived in the United States under supervision, checking in annually with immigration authorities. In 2018, she was informed that Armenia had begun accepting such individuals, which placed her at immediate risk of removal. She promptly retained counsel, who identified grounds to vacate her conviction due to a procedural defect, and the conviction was vacated in May 2019.Following the vacatur, she filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, but the Immigration Judge denied it, finding she had not explained why she waited over two years after the relevant California statute became effective to seek vacatur. She then filed a second motion to reopen, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel in the first motion failed to present facts or arguments about her diligence. The Immigration Judge denied the second motion as number-barred, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal, finding she had not demonstrated due diligence and thus was not entitled to equitable tolling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the BIA applied the wrong standard in assessing diligence for stateless individuals. The Ninth Circuit concluded that it is reasonable for someone in her position to begin challenging removability only upon learning they are at risk of removal. The court found she acted with due diligence after learning of her removability and that the BIA abused its discretion in finding otherwise. The court granted her petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "ESKILIAN V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A mother and her minor daughter, both citizens of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2017 without valid entry documents. The mother applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that a criminal gang in El Salvador had repeatedly threatened her family with violence and kidnapping in attempts to extort money. Although her family partially complied with the gang’s demands and was not physically harmed, she asserted that returning to El Salvador would put her and her children at risk, as the gang had widespread influence and the Salvadoran government could not protect them.An immigration judge found the mother's testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and determined that, even if her testimony were credible, the threats did not amount to past persecution, the alleged social groups were not cognizable, and she could relocate within El Salvador. The judge denied all claims for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that she had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA also determined that her argument that the immigration judge was biased was waived because she raised it only in a conclusory manner and abandoned it in her appellate brief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision as the final agency action. The court held that the BIA properly applied its waiver rule and did not err in finding the due process claim waived, as the argument was inadequately raised and not meaningfully pursued. The court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the Department of Homeland Security’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion regarding enforcement priorities. The petition for review was denied. View "Quijano-Duran v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A United States citizen originally from Yemen filed family-based visa petitions (Form I-130) in 2002 on behalf of several relatives, including his stepdaughter. The immigration authorities sent a notice of intent to deny these petitions and a subsequent denial letter to the address provided on the petition. The petitioner did not respond, and the petitions were denied. Twenty years later, the petitioner sued, asserting that he never received the notices because the agency had mistakenly sent them to an address where he did not live, and that this lack of notice violated the Due Process Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. He attached a redacted version of his petition to his complaint, omitting the address at issue.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, initially denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint plausibly supported the application of the discovery rule or equitable tolling and otherwise stated a claim. However, when the government moved for judgment on the pleadings and submitted an unredacted copy of the I-130 petition showing that the petitioner himself had listed the very address to which the notices were sent, the court found this document dispositive. The petitioner did not meaningfully contest the authenticity or content of the unredacted petition, failed to appear at the hearing, and did not object to the government’s supporting affidavit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the unredacted I-130 petition conclusively refuted the petitioner’s factual claims. The court held that when a plaintiff’s own incorporated documents contradict the complaint’s allegations, those documents control. The court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment for the government, finding that the due process and APA claims failed as a matter of law. View "Muthana v Mullin" on Justia Law

A citizen of Mexico was the beneficiary of an approved family-sponsored immigrant visa petition filed by his mother in 1992, which was approved in 1993. He did not apply for lawful permanent resident status at that time. In 2000, he was deemed inadmissible at the United States-Mexico border, ordered removed, and was actually removed. He reentered the United States without inspection shortly thereafter. In 2017, his wife filed a new immigrant visa petition on his behalf, which was approved, and he applied for adjustment of status. During a 2018 interview regarding that application, he admitted to being illegally present and previously removed, after which he was arrested and DHS began proceedings to reinstate his prior removal order.After the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior removal order, the petitioner sought review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. DHS identified a procedural error in the initial reinstatement (an unsigned section), canceled the order, and began the process again. At the second reinstatement proceeding, the petitioner was advised of his rights but declined to make a statement or sign the acknowledgment form. DHS reinstated the removal order, and he again appealed to the Ninth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that it was not impermissibly retroactive to apply the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’s reinstatement provision to the petitioner because he had not taken any affirmative steps to adjust his status before the law took effect. The court further held that, to obtain relief for a due process violation based on denial of a right to counsel in reinstatement proceedings, an alien must show prejudice, and the petitioner failed to establish such prejudice. The petition was denied. View "RUIZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A citizen of the Dominican Republic entered the United States without authorization as a child and lived with his mother, brother, and stepfather. The stepfather, who was not an authorized resident at the time, severely abused both the petitioner and his mother. After enduring years of abuse, the petitioner left home as a teenager but continued to support his mother, who later developed significant mental health issues linked to her trauma. The stepfather eventually gained lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and later threatened the petitioner again.The petitioner was charged with removability for lacking valid entry documents. He conceded removability but sought relief through two forms of cancellation: one, a special rule for individuals abused by a parent who is or was an LPR or citizen; the other, cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents based on hardship to a qualifying relative. The Immigration Judge denied both applications, finding the petitioner ineligible for special rule cancellation because the stepfather was not an LPR at the time of the abuse, and finding insufficient evidence of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the mother to grant cancellation of removal.On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge, agreeing that the abuser had to be an LPR at the time of the abuse and that the hardship to the mother did not meet the statutory threshold. The petitioner then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.The Third Circuit held that the special rule for cancellation does not require the abuser to have been an LPR at the time of the abuse; it is sufficient if the abuser is or was an LPR at any time before relief is adjudicated. The court thus granted the petition on this claim and remanded for further proceedings. However, it denied the petition regarding cancellation of removal, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion on hardship. View "Cardenas v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

A Polish citizen was approved for an immigrant visa in 2009 based on a petition filed by her U.S. citizen sister. While awaiting visa availability, she remained in the United States unlawfully for over a year, making her inadmissible and subject to a ten-year bar from reentering the country. In 2020, her mother, a lawful permanent resident, died. She then applied for a waiver of her inadmissibility, citing her mother’s death as the qualifying hardship, and sought relief under a statutory provision that allows certain applications to proceed despite the death of a qualifying relative.The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied her waiver application, explaining that the relevant policy only applies if the deceased relative had been the qualifying petitioner for the underlying visa, which in her case was her sister, not her mother. Attempts to reopen or reconsider the decision were also denied. She then sought relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, requesting a declaratory judgment on her eligibility and challenging the agency’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court dismissed her case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that the relevant immigration statutes precluded judicial review of the agency’s waiver decisions.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that the statute unequivocally bars judicial review of all agency decisions regarding waivers of inadmissibility, including eligibility determinations, and that such decisions are committed to agency discretion. The presumption of reviewability under the APA was rebutted by the statute's clear jurisdiction-stripping language. The court also publicly admonished the plaintiff’s attorney for including fictitious citations in the appellate brief but imposed no further sanctions. View "Dec v Mullin" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Jamaican national who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1971, was removed from the country in 2007 following a 1996 conviction under New York law for the attempted sale of a “narcotic drug.” Many years later, based on a recent Second Circuit decision—United States v. Minter—that held the relevant New York statute was broader than its federal counterpart, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider or reopen his removal order, arguing that the legal basis for his removal no longer applied. He filed this motion within thirty days of the Minter decision.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the petitioner’s motion, concluding that he had not demonstrated the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the filing deadlines for such motions. The BIA reasoned that an earlier Second Circuit case, Harbin v. Sessions, should have prompted the petitioner to file sooner. The BIA interpreted the petitioner’s arguments as asserting that Harbin constituted a fundamental change in the law sufficient to support his motion, and therefore found his delay unreasonable.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the BIA mischaracterized the petitioner’s arguments and misunderstood the legal significance of the Harbin and Minter decisions. The court held that the petitioner’s rights to relief did not arise until Minter, and he was not required to file earlier motions based on law that had not yet changed. The Second Circuit therefore held that the BIA abused its discretion, vacated the BIA’s order, granted the petition for review and motion to stay removal, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Ramsay v. Bondi" on Justia Law