Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

President Trump's issuance of Proclamation 9645 entitled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats" violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and exceeded the scope of his delegated authority. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation's section 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h), holding that the Government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) not only upended the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviated from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well; the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be detrimental to the interests of the United States; the Proclamation conflicted with the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas; and the President was without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation. However, the panel limited the scope of the preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. View "Hawaii v. Trump" on Justia Law

Gitau, a Kenyan citizen, married a U.S. citizen, Johnson, and became a lawful permanent resident on a conditional basis. Under 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(1)(A) and (B), she and Johnson could remove the conditional nature of her status by jointly filing Form I-751. They divorced, however, and Gitau was unable to satisfy the joint filing requirement. She filed a petition to waive the joint filing requirement, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4), which was denied. In removal proceedings she renewed her waiver request, arguing that she entered into the marriage in good faith and that her removal would result in extreme hardship. The IJ ruled against Gitau, finding her not to be a credible witness and that the evidence other than her own testimony was insufficient to support her claim of good faith. The IJ also found that Gitau had not demonstrated extreme hardship. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed a petition for review. The court noted inconsistencies in Gitau’s evidence and that, in 2007, Johnson purported to marry two other individuals seeking U.S. residence status. The only evidence of hardship not barred due to timing concerns was Gitau's testimony that it would be impossible for her to find work in her field in her parents' village in Kenya. View "Gitau v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The detainees alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied precedent such that neither side has shown that the limited preliminary injunction was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. In this case, the district court properly read and applied Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The panel also held that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in issuing only a limited preliminary injunction. View "Doe v. Kelly" on Justia Law

In November 2005, Lee was admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant student's spouse. In March 2006, the Temple sought a nonimmigrant religious worker (R-1) visa for Lee. That petition remained pending in USCIS’s California Service Center (CSC) for almost four years. In October 2009, CSC indicated that USCIS intended to approve the petition and retroactively amend Lee’s status, to give her lawful status June 2006-May 2009 and that the Temple could apply for an extension for the remaining eligibility period, through May 2011. CSC’s approval notice stated that the R‐1 visa was valid through May 2009. CSC later approved an extension, covering May 2010-October 2011, leaving a gap in Lee’s lawful status. A November 2010 I‐360 petition, seeking classification as a special immigrant religious worker, stated that Lee had worked for the Temple since October 2009. CSC denied the application because Lee had worked when she did not have a valid visa. In June 2013, CSC agreed to eliminate the gap; CSC approved the I‐360 petition. In December 2013, Lee sought to adjust her status to lawful permanent resident. The Nebraska Service Center denied Lee’s application, noting a status violation. USCIS indicated its intent to revoke the I‐360 petition for failure to establish that Lee had worked continuously in a qualifying occupation for two years immediately preceding the application. The Temple responded that CSC had unreasonably delayed the initial application. USCIS considered that an admission and revoked the I‐360. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a petition for judicial review. The revocation at issue is the type of discretionary action that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars from judicial review. View "Bultasa Buddhist Temple of Chicago v. Nielsen" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging the USCIS's denial of jurisdiction over plaintiff's application for an adjustment of his immigration status. The court agreed with the district court that the present action constituted an indirect challenge to an outstanding removal order issued against plaintiff and thus 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) precluded subject matter jurisdiction. View "Singh v. USCIS" on Justia Law

The Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced steps to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by March 2018, concluding that DACA violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Due Process Clause. The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of challengers. The government then moved to stay the district court order requiring completion of the administrative record until after resolution of motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction. The court stayed its order for one month. The government petitioned the Supreme Court, which vacated. The district court’s order required the government to turn over all “emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials ... actually seen or considered, however briefly, by Acting Secretary ... in connection with the ... decision … all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided … written advice or input … all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided … verbal input … all comments and questions propounded ... to advisors or subordinates … and their responses, and … all materials directly or indirectly considered by former Secretary of DHS John Kelly leading to his February 2017 memorandum not to rescind DACA. The court should have first resolved the government’s threshold arguments that the decision was unreviewable as “committed to agency discretion,” 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court may not compel the government to disclose any document that the government believes is privileged without first providing an opportunity to argue the issue. The Court did not consider the merits of the claims or defenses. View "In Re United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of his removal order. The court held that the BIA correctly determined that Minnesota misdemeanor domestic assault qualified as a crime of domestic violence and thus petitioner's conviction for this offense rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Onduso v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The petition for rehearing by panel was granted and the previous opinion and judgment on July 10, 2017 was vacated.The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner sought to narrow his defined social group, but the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the argument because it had not been raised before. The court held that the BIA's finding that petitioner did not suffer past persecution based on his political opinion was supported by substantial evidence. In this case, there was no nexus between any possible persecution and his political opinion or any other statutorily protected ground. Furthermore, while petitioner's fear of persecution may be genuine, he failed to point to specific facts indicating this fear was more than speculation of the possibility of future harm. View "Baltti v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed for want of jurisdiction Petitioners’ petition for judicial review of the denial of their applications for voluntary departure to Guatemala and Mexico, holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of voluntary departure.The IJ denied Petitioners’ applications on discretionary grounds. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners appealed, asserting several allegations of error. The First Circuit did not reach the merits of Petitioner’s contentions, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to do so because Petitioner’s claims of error were not at least colorable. View "de la Cruz-Orellana v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's denial of asylum to petitioner, a citizen of China, who sought relief based on his political opinion. The panel held that the evidence before the IJ and BIA compelled the conclusion, at the very least, that Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner because of an anti-eminent domain political opinion they imputed to him. Accordingly, the panel vacated the denial of asylum and remanded to the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant asylum. View "Song v. Sessions" on Justia Law