Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Eleventh Circuit granted in part a petition for panel rehearing, vacated the prior opinion in this case, and substituted the following opinion. Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal.The court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner was convicted under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a) (possession with intent to deliver), and not section 893.13(6)(a) (simple possession). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction under Immigration and Nationality Act section 242 to grant petitioner relief on this claim and dismissed the petition for review in part.The court held that DHS was not required to file a cross-appeal to advance its controlled substance argument on appeal to the BIA, and the BIA did not err in considering that argument. The court also held that Flunitrazepam is a controlled substance, and the BIA did not err in denying petitioner's motion for a remand to pursue a section 212(h) waiver. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part. View "Bula Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence of 111 days and 3 years of supervised release after he pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful use of identification documents. The court held that the district court's decision to impose supervised release was both consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines and an appropriate exercise of the district court's wide latitude in determining a sentence. In this case, the conditions of defendant's supervised release specified if he were removed or deported, he could not reenter the United States without permission, but he would not be on active supervision while he was outside the country. View "United States v. Hernandez-Loera" on Justia Law

The temporary, ex parte emergency order presented by plaintiff did not qualify as a predicate state court custody order for the special immigrant juvenile application. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment and held that it properly concluded that the USCIS did not impose an ultra vires requirement for permanent custody orders within the SIJ application process. Therefore, the agency did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law, or abuse its discretion in determining that plaintiff failed to present a qualifying predicate order in support of his SIJ petition. Finally, the court held that the Full Faith and Credit Act was inapplicable under the facts presented in this case. View "Perez v. Cissna" on Justia Law

In Belarus, Ruderman experience discrimination and violence because of his Jewish heritage. His father, a documentary filmmaker, died while filming a piece on government corruption and had previously been detained and battered by the KGB. Ruderman fled to the U.S. at age 19, in 2001, under the Lautenberg Amendment, which lowers barriers to immigration for certain former Soviet nationals, 8 U.S.C. 1157. Shortly after arriving he was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced to court supervision. He found work and got married. In 2008, Ruderman struck and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk. He pleaded guilty to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle and was sentenced to five years in prison. Following his release, he worked until the government denied his adjustment‐of‐status application, causing his work permit to expire. The government then began removal proceedings. The IJ concluded that Ruderman was statutorily inadmissible because of his two convictions and denied Ruderman’s applications for a waiver of inadmissibility, adjustment of status under the Lautenberg Amendment, cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA dismissed Ruderman’s appeal. The Seventh Circuit remanded the question of whether Ruderman is statutorily inadmissible. It is unclear why the BIA concluded that Ruderman waived his argument that the inadmissibility statute applies only when two or more convictions each result in a sentence to confinement. View "Ruderman v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

A notice to appear that does not specify the time and date of an alien's initial removal hearing vests an immigration judge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings, so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien in a timely manner. The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner relief from removal. In this case, because the charging document satisfied the regulatory requirements, the panel held that the IJ had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings. The panel also noted that petitioner had actual notice of the hearings through multiple follow-up notices that provided the date and time of each hearing. View "Karingithi v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s application for both withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the BIA’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.Specifically, the BIA ruled that the only social group to which Petitioner claimed to belong was not a social group that was statutorily protected and that Petitioner was not entitled to protection under the CAT. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner’s challenges to the BIA’s decision failed. View "Agustin v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and humanitarian asylum. The court held that the IJ and BIA reasonably determined that petitioner failed to demonstrate that "Mexican citizens targeted by criminal groups because they have been in the United States and they have families in the United States" were viewed as a socially distinct group in Mexico and that the group was not defined with sufficient particularity. Even if the court were to hold that the agencies' decisions did not merit deference, the court would reach the same conclusion. Furthermore, petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the persecution suffered, the persecution she claims she will suffer, and any other statutorily protected grounds for asylum. View "Perez-Zenteno v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversing the order of an immigration judge (IJ) granting Petitioner cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, holding that the “persecutor bar” - which disqualifies certain persons from immigration relief - does not require a showing that the alien shared the motive of the persecutors whom he assisted.Petitioner, a Salvadoran native and citizen, conceded that he stood guard for his superiors while they engaged in an act of persecution but argued that he acted without a personal motive to persecute. In granting Petitioner cancellation of removal, the IJ concluded that the persecutor bar did not apply to Petitioner because he lacked a motive to persecute. The BIA reversed, determining that the persecutor bar was applicable despite Petitioner’s lack of such a motive. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the persecutor bar does not require a showing that the applicant shared the motive of the persecutors whom he or she assisted. View "Alvarado v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of India and member of the Mann Party, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his claims for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel granted the petition for review of the asylum and withholding of removal claims because the BIA did not conduct a sufficiently individualized analysis of petitioner's ability to relocate within India outside of the state of Punjab.The panel held that the BIA erred in failing to conduct a reasoned analysis with respect to petitioner's situation to determine whether, in light of the specific persons or entities that caused his past persecution, and the nature and extent of that persecution, there are one or more general or specific areas within his country of origin where he has no well-founded fear of persecution, and where it is reasonable for him to relocate pursuant to the factors set forth in 8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b)(3). However, the panel denied the petition for review of petitioner's claim for humanitarian and CAT protection, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision. View "Singh v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Fuller entered the U.S. on a fiancé visa in 1999 and married an American citizen in 2000. In 2004, he pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sexual assault. An Illinois court ultimately imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment. Following Fuller’s 2014 release, DHS initiated removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) . In 2004, Fuller and his wife, whom he divorced in 2005, had failed to appear for a mandatory immigration interview, triggering the revocation of his conditional residency status. Because Fuller’s conviction constituted a “particularly serious crime,” he was disqualified from seeking withholding of removal. Fuller sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, alleging that he was likely to be tortured as a bisexual if returned to Jamaica. In 2015, the BIA affirmed the denial of relief based on the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. Fuller asked the BIA to reopen his removal proceeding so that he could present new evidence, Fuller submitted new letters of support from acquaintances attesting to prior incidents in which he was the victim of violence in Jamaica owing to his sexual orientation. In denying this request, the BIA explained that “[Fuller’s] motion does not challenge our conclusions regarding his credibility or his eligibility for deferral of removal, and we do not find that his letters of support would materially alter these findings.” The Seventh Circuit again remanded. The BIA’s stated rationale reflects a misapprehension of the basis for his request. View "Fuller v. Whitaker" on Justia Law