Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit amended an opinion affirming the district court's judgment denying a habeas corpus petition where petitioner sought a custody redetermination as he awaited the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that reinstated removal orders were administratively final for detention purposes, and that the detention of aliens subject to reinstated removal orders was governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), rather than section 1226(a). Therefore, petitioner was not entitled to a bond hearing. View "Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit amended an opinion granting a petition for review of the BIA's denial of asylum and withholding of removal to petitioner, a citizen of China, who sought relief based on his political opinion. The panel explained that there was no dispute that petitioner experienced past persecution at the hands of the local government. The appeal turned instead on whether the persecution he suffered was on account of an imputed or actual political opinion. The panel held that the evidence compelled a finding that petitioner was persecuted by Chinese authorities on account of an imputed or actual political opinion. View "Xinbing Song v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats. The Proclamation succeeded President Trump's executive orders and indefinitely suspended the entry of some or all immigrants and nonimmigrants from eight countries. Determining that plaintiffs' claims were justiciable, the court held that plaintiffs have met their high burden of demonstrating that the Proclamation's purported purpose was not "bona fide" under Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972). Next, the court examined official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the Proclamation itself, and held that the Proclamation failed to demonstrate a primarily secular purpose. Rather, the Proclamation continued to exhibit a primarily religious anti-Muslim objective. Therefore, the court held that plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will likely succeed on the merits of their Establishment Clause claim. Furthermore, the likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest all favored granting injunctive relief. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

The First Circuit remanded this immigration case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) due to its insufficient explanation of why the least culpable conduct prohibited under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, 2 is morally reprehensible, and why the statute’s requirement of “malice,” as construed by Massachusetts courts, qualifies the crime as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was charged as removable. Petitioner denied his removability and, in the alternative, requested several forms of relief. Petitioner was previously convicted of the crime of Massachusetts arson. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner’s Massachusetts crime was categorically a CIMT. The IJ also found Petitioner ineligible for relief from removal on the basis that he failed to prove that his conviction was not an aggravated felony. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal in an opinion that replicated the IJ’s reasoning. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s opinion, and remanded for further proceedings for the reasons set forth above. View "Rosa Pena v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Anyone who under the relevant statutes is considered a minor child of a legal permanent resident (LPR) on the date of the parent's naturalization (and who is the beneficiary of a valid petition for an immigrant visa based on that status) can obtain a visa as the minor child of a citizen following his parent's naturalization. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision rejecting petitioner's application for adjustment of status. The panel held that petitioner, a child of an LPR who was deemed by statute to be a minor child until the very day his father naturalized, still qualified as a minor on that day. The panel remanded to the BIA to find that petitioner had an immediately available visa as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen and to conduct further proceedings regarding the other requirements for adjustment of status. View "Rodriguez Tovar v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioners' claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that it had jurisdiction to review petitioners' administrative closure claim, because the Avetisyan factors, rooted in the regulatory grant of authority to IJs and the BIA, provided a sufficiently meaningful standard against which to review IJ and BIA decisions regarding administrative closure. The panel noted that, although remand would usually be appropriate where the IJ and BIA did not conduct an independent review of a request for administrative closure, petitioners here have not argued or shown how they were eligible for administrative closure under the Avetisyan factors. Furthermore, petitioners had no pending petitions or other requests for immigration relief that might make remand necessary. Finally, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the IJ and BIA's decision denying CAT relief. View "Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Fourth Circuit held that the BIA erred in holding that petitioner did not meet the nexus requirement where at least one central reason for petitioner's persecution was membership in his family, a protected social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and remanded for further proceedings. The court separately remanded for consideration of the asylum claim in light of its recent decision in Zambrano v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 84 (4th Cir. 2017), which affected petitioner's argument that a statutory "changed circumstances" exception allows consideration of his untimely application. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the petition for review. View "Salgado-Sosa v. Sessions" on Justia Law

This appeal addressed whether immigration detainees housed in a private contract detention facility in Aurora, Colorado could bring claims as a class under: (1) 18 U.S.C. 1589, a provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (the “TVPA”) that prohibits forced labor; and (2) Colorado unjust enrichment law. The GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) owned and operated the Aurora Facility under government contract. While there, Appellees rendered mandatory and voluntary services to GEO: cleaning their housing units’ common areas and performed various jobs through a voluntary work program, which paid them $1 a day. The district court certified two separate classes: (1) all detainees housed at the Aurora Facility in the past ten years (the “TVPA class”); and (2) all detainees who participated in the Aurora Facility’s voluntary work program in the past three years (the “unjust enrichment class”). On interlocutory appeal, GEO argues that the district court abused its discretion in certifying each class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It primarily contended Appellees’ TVPA and Colorado unjust enrichment claims both required predominantly individualized determinations, making class treatment inappropriate. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed class certification. View "Menocal v. The GEO Group" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal and in affirming the IJ's decision finding that she received proper notice of her removal hearing and failed to show a change in country conditions. View "Garcia Nunez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Bernard, a Jamaican citizen, says he realized as a preteen that he was bisexual, but hid it out of fear. He claimed that his family and other Jamaicans persecuted members of the LGBT community. Bernard arrived in the U.S. in 1998, then 19 years old, on a visitor’s visa. He married an American citizen; they divorced. Bernard then had a long relationship with another woman, but also dated men. Between 2002 and 2013 Bernard was convicted of multiple crimes including weapons and drug offenses, and, in 2011 domestic battery, for stabbing his girlfriend’s sister. He never served time in custody. In 2016 removal proceedings, Bernard sought withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A), and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, stating that, if removed, he feared persecution or torture based on his bisexuality and membership in the Jamaica Labour Party. The IJ denied relief, finding that Bernard was not credible enough to sustain his burden on his testimony alone and that the underlying facts of his domestic-battery offense were “particularly serious.” The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the portion of Bernard’s petition seeking review of the “particularly serious crime” designation, and denied the remainder of the petition, stating that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s reasoning. View "Bernard v. Sessions" on Justia Law