Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen and challenged the BIA's refusal to open his case sua sponte. The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to review the Board's June 2013 order denying the April 2013 motion to reopen where petitioner's contentions regarding the Board's evaluation of new factual information presented no question of law. Further, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's refusal to reopen a case sua sponte because there is no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion and the determination is committed to agency discretion by law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review.View "Barajas-Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2011. Petitioner married a United States citizen in 2004, at which point he was granted conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner and his wife did not seek to alter Petitioner’s status so it would no longer be conditional by the deadline, and, after his marriage ended, Petitioner filed for a hardship waiver. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied Petitioner’s waiver request, and Petitioner was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings. Petitioner renewed his waiver request, which an Immigration Judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that Petitioner did not make a showing that he entered into his marriage in good faith. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Board’s finding on the issue of whether Petitioner’s marriage was entered into in good faith was supported by substantial evidence on the record.View "Lamim v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that he left for the United States because he feared a gang would kill him. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed summarily. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the IJ’s factual finding that Petitioner failed to establish a viable nexus between the persecution he identified and the particular social group to which he claimed to belong - abandoned Guatemalan children lacking protection from gang violence.View "Guerra-Marchorro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed his conviction for attempting to enter the United States without consent after having been previously removed. In regards to defendant's collateral attack of the underlying removal order, the court held that defendant was not denied due process because the IJ's determination that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony was not contrary to the court's precedent at the time the removal order was issued and was the product of a reasonable reading of the statute; because defendant had been convicted of an aggravated felony, he was statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure, and the IJ was under no obligation to inform him of the existence of such relief for the proceedings to comport with due process; even if the IJ should have informed defendant of his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure, the failure to do so did not render the removal proceedings "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(3) because he was no prejudiced by the alleged error; and, therefore, the underlying removal order was a valid predicate to a conviction for attempted illegal reentry. The court also held that ample record evidence corroborated defendant's confession to the gravamen of the offense and establishes the trustworthiness of his statement to the DHS officer. Accordingly, the conviction based on defendant's videotaped confession does not run afoul of the corpus delicti doctrine. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Valdez-Novoa" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's requests for asylum, cancellation of removal, special cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner's 1989 conviction for grand theft auto was an aggravated felony which made him ineligible for cancellation of removal and special cancellation of removal; the court joined its sister circuits in concluding that Congress intended the aggravated felony bar to apply to convictions received before the enactment of the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments of 1991 (MTINA) in 1991, and the court further concluded that the bar applied to petitioner's 1989 conviction; and the court declined to address petitioner's adverse credibility claims on mootness grounds. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.View "Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's pretermission of his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The court concluded that petitioner's prior conviction for tampering with records under Iowa Code 715A.5 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Therefore, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and the court denied the petition for review.View "Villatoro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Yang, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. in 1998, as a tourist. In 2000, he married a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 visa petition and application for adjustment of status on Yang’s behalf, but withdrew her petition in 2003. , Yang’s application was denied after an investigation led USCIS to conclude that his marriage was fraudulent. In 2007 he divorced. Yang then filed an application for asylum and associated relief based on his practice of Falun Gong. Although Falun Gong was not officially banned in China until 1999, in 1998 the police arrested Yang and placed him in a cell overnight. Yang continued practicing Falun Gong in the U.S. and believed that Chinese officials knew of his practice. In 2008, Yang married Li, who immediately filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. USCIS sent notice of intent to deny, because it believed that Yang’s prior marriage had been a sham. Li submitted rebuttal materials, but USCIS lost them and denied the petition for lack of support. The IJ denied a continuance pending adjudication of the I-130. Yang also sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He was unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit remanded the BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s denial of a continuance pending adjudication of Yang’s I- 130.View "Yang v. Holder" on Justia Law

More than 10 years after Jama was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee based on his sworn statement that he was the minor child of a principal refugee, USCIS learned that Jama was not a minor or the biological child of the principal refugee. After notice and an opportunity to respond, USCIS terminated Jama’s refugee status on the basis of fraud. USCIS denied Jama’s pending applications for status adjustment and fraud waiver, denied a motion to reopen, and initiated removal proceedings. The agency did not rule on Jama’s application for asylum and for withholding of removal which had been submitted before the termination decision. In August 2011, USCUS sent a notice to appear on the removability charges and referred Jama’s application for asylum to the IJ presiding over the removal proceedings. In June 2012, the IJ held a hearing and concluded that Jama was removable based on the charge that he did not possess a valid immigrant visa or entry document and that Jama was not eligible for an entry document as a derivative beneficiary at the time of his entry. The IJ dismissed Jama’s argument that his refugee status was improperly terminated, The IJ did not rule on Jama’s asylum claims, which remain pending. The district court dismissed his complaint seeking review, under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Jama failed to state a claim.View "Jama v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Sobaleva, a citizen of Belarus, entered the U.S. on a valid student visa. She applied for asylum, contending that the Belarusian government persecuted her for her political opinion before she left and likely would do so again if she were to return. She also requested asylum for her husband, Potorac, a citizen of Moldova. An immigration judge denied Sobaleva’s application and ordered that she and Potorac be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, stating that Sobaleva had not established either past persecution based on her political opinion or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding two significant flaws in the decisions: the judge and the Board applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that Sobaleva was not persecuted in Belarus and misconstrued and disregarded important evidence.View "Sobaleva v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala and an indigenous Mayan Quiche, entered the United States without inspection. After Petitioner was charged with removability, Petitioner filed requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, arguing that he and his Mayan Quiche community had been attacked by the Guatemalan military on account of their race and ethnicity and that he would suffer serious harm if returned to Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s requests for relief and ordered him removed, concluding that Petitioner did not qualify for asylum because he had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ’s decision and remanded, holding that the BIA’s and IJ’s determinations that Petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground were not supported by substantial evidence.View "Ordonez-Quino v. Holder" on Justia Law