Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that because petitioner was sentenced to a "term of imprisonment of at least one year," the BIA did not err in determining that his aggravated-assault conviction was an aggravated felony that made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Calvillo Garcia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the IJ's decision denying his motion to suppress evidence of his alienage and ordering his removal. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding that the Coast Guard officers committed an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and violated an immigration regulation because they seized him based on his Latino ethnicity alone; the IJ erred in failing to suppress the Form I-213, but the panel did not reach the question of the Family Unity Benefits and Employment Authorization applications; and because petitioner has shown that the Government violated its own regulation that was designed to benefit petitioner, and that petitioner was prejudiced by the violation, his removal proceedings must be terminated. View "Sanchez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Pursuant to In re M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 480 (B.I.A. 2011), if an applicant shows indicia of incompetency, the IJ has an independent duty to determine whether the applicant is competent. In this case, petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the IJ's denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition, holding that the IJ erred by failing to determine whether procedural safeguards were required after petitioner showed signs of mental incompetency. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion by failing to explain why it allowed the IJ to disregard In re M-A-M-'s rigorous procedural requirements. The panel remanded to the BIA with instructions to remand to the IJ for a new hearing consistent with In re M-A-M-. View "Mejia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Misternovo and his sons (Petitioners) are citizens of Guatemala who first entered the U.S. in 1990, 1998, and 2004, respectively. In 1999, Misternovo filed an application for suspension of deportation or special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) that listed his sons as derivatives. USCIS denied the NACARA application. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The Immigration Judge ruled that Petitioners were removable as charged. Later, in January 2012, Misternovo’s NACARA application received a full merits hearing. An Immigration Judge denied that application, holding that Misternovo had failed to establish that he had timely registered for benefits pursuant to the American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh settlement agreement; an appeal was dismissed by the BIA. More than two years later, Petitioners filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Guatemala. The BIA denied the motion. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. The time bar contained in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) applies to motions to reopen based on a request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. View "Bamaca-Cifuentes v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Organizations that represent migrant farm-workers claimed that the U.S. Border Patrol allows agents at its Sandusky Bay, Ohio station to target persons of Hispanic appearance for questioning. The district court found that the Plaintiffs had not proved their claim. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Border Patrol trains its agents to follow the official policy, to avoid racial profiling and the plaintiffs did not prove the existence of a ratification-based policy of racial targeting at Sandusky Bay. The plaintiffs’ analysis of statistical information to show that agents from Sandusky Bay were targeting persons of Hispanic appearance was unreliable. View "Muniz-Muniz v. United States Border Patrol" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision finding her ineligible for cancellation of removal based on her failure to meet her burden of proof of showing that her conviction for conspiring to sell and transport a controlled substance, in violation of California Penal Code 182(a)(1), was not for a disqualifying controlled substance. The Ninth Circuit held that the conspiracy statute under which petitioner was convicted was overbroad but divisible, petitioner failed to carry her burden of proof to demonstrate that her conviction did not involve a federally controlled substance, and she had failed to exhaust the argument that expungement of her conviction erased its immigration consequences. Accordingly, the panel denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Marinelarena v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Mendoza was born in Honduras in 1989. Mendoza’s father (Martinez) was politically active in the Liberal Party. He routinely spoke out against the National Party. In 2000, a National Party activist assassinated Martinez and wounded Martinez’s wife. In 2002, Mendoza’s uncle was assassinated by a National Party activist. Mendoza was president of the local Liberal Party’s youth division, gave speeches supporting the Party, and worked for the Party during the 2013 national election. He received a message that threatened him with the same fate as his father. Mendoza reported this incident. He was denied a visa to enter the U.S., crossed the border without inspection, and was returned to Honduras. When he was detained after his second entry Mendoza requested asylum or withholding of removal because he feared for his life if returned to Honduras. He was placed into a “withholding only” proceeding. An IJ ordered his removal. The Third Circuit reversed, noting evidence of the politically motivated death threats, inaction on Mendoza’s complaints, a perpetrator and judge who shared a political affiliation in opposition to that of Mendoza, and evidence of a politically corrupt system that failed to reign in politically motivated violence. The Honduran government was unwilling or unable to protect Mendoza; he could not safely return. View "Mendoza-Ordonez v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit granted the petition for review challenging the denial of petitioner's application for a waiver and order of removal. The court held that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's admission of the ex-husband's affidavit and the USCIS report without granting petitioner's request for a subpoena or otherwise providing petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine the ex-husband. The court also held that this error was prejudicial and rendered petitioner's removal hearing fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for remand under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), based on her now-husband's pending visa petition on her behalf, which would give petitioner the opportunity to adjust status independent of the conditional status she received by way of her marriage to her ex-husband. In this case, petitioner faced no accusations of fraud or willful misrepresentations, the IJ declined to make an adverse credibility finding, and the IJ explicitly acknowledged that petitioner had not been charged with entering into a marriage by fraud, or for paying for a marriage. View "Patel v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The failure to satisfy the warning requirements of 8 C.F.R. 240.25 does not preclude a finding of a voluntary departure under threat of deportation sufficient to break the ten-year period of continuous presence required to be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal from the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal of a nonpermanent resident alien under section 1229b(b). The court held that petitioner voluntarily departed the country under a threat of deportation, thus breaking his continuous presence here. View "Rodriguez-Labato v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that petitioner's California conviction for second degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory qualified as an aggravated felony. The panel explained that the Supreme Court, in 2007, reviewed California's law on aiding and abetting, which like that of many jurisdictions looks to the natural and probable consequences of an act the defendant intended. Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 191–93 (2007). The Supreme Court concluded that absent a showing that the law has been applied in some "special" way, a conviction in California for aiding and abetting a removable offense was also a removable offense. The panel held that California law has not materially changed since Duenas-Alvarez was decided and was not applied in any "special" way in petitioner's case. View "Sales Jr. v. Sessions" on Justia Law