Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Iran, challenged the BIA's determination that he provided material support in the 1970s to a "Tier III" terrorist organization (MEK), making him statutorily ineligible for immigration relief other than deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court held that, under a normal reading of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), as amended by the PATRIOT Act, the statutory terrorism bar applied retroactively to an alien's material support of a "Tier III" terrorist organization and that the statutory terrorism bar applied in petitioner's case. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioner gave support to MEK in the 1970s and that petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, or should not reasonably have known, that MEK was a terrorist organization during the time in which he gave it material support. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Bojnoordi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, five individual "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA) recipients living in Arizona, sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from enforcing their policy that prevents DACA recipients from obtaining Arizona driver's licenses. The district court denied the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that plaintiffs' requested preliminary injunction was prohibitory, not mandatory; the court need not rely on plaintiffs' preemption claim to determine whether plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to defendants' policy; plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their equal protection claim and the subsequent revision of defendants' policy did not undermine this conclusion where the current policy continues to permit the use of Employment Authorization Documents as proof of authorized presence for two sizeable groups of noncitizens similarly situated to DACA recipients and where there was no rational relationship between the policy and a legitimate state interest; plaintiffs have shown that, in the absence of a preliminary injunction, they are likely to suffer irreparable harm where, among other things, plaintiffs' inability to obtain driver's licenses limits their professional opportunities; and plaintiffs have established that both the public interest and the balance of the equities favor a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction. View "Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal reentry, collaterally attacking his underlying removal order. The court concluded that defendant's attorney in the immigration proceedings provided ineffective assistance of counsel by erroneously conceding to his removability based on defendant's prior conviction under Missouri Revised Statutes 195.211 and by failing to appeal the removal order to the BIA and failing to petition the Seventh Circuit for review. The court held that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel throughout his immigration proceedings, he was deprived of his right to due process, the proceedings were fundamentally unfair, and the indictment for criminal reentry must be dismissed. View "United States v. Lopez-Chavez" on Justia Law

Estrada, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1996, at age 20, and has not left; he is married and has five children, all U.S. citizens. He was denied cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), for failure to demonstrate “good moral character.” He had several traffic citations, including for driving in an “aggravated manner” after his license had been revoked; driving without a valid license, driving three times under the influence of alcohol, twice lacking required proof of financial responsibility; running a traffic light; disregarding a stop sign; failing to fasten his seat belt, and other violations. During removal proceedings, he was arrested and charged with eight traffic offenses, four of which involved “aggravated” driving under the influence. Despite continuances, those charges had not been resolved when the immigration judge ruled. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review. The Board had enough evidence to make the latest criminal proceeding immaterial. The court characterized a defense argument as “a contention that as long as his client goes on violating the traffic laws, he can’t be removed—for even though his record gets worse and worse, there will always be some pending charges that the immigration judge must wait to see resolved before deciding whether to order him removed. “ View "Ortiz-Estrada v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ali Shah entered the country in 2002. His removal proceedings lasted for well over ten years. He had the benefit of two de novo hearings before two different IJs, and his appeals were considered by the BIA on multiple occasions and petitions for review to the Third Circuit. Shah's motion for a change of venue was granted and this matter was transferred from Philadelphia to Boston in 2009. The focus of this appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals centered on the circumstances that followed the change of venue. Petitioner argued on appeal that the BIA did not properly address either of his arguments going to earlier adverse credibility findings. He made a series of arguments in support of reopening that were never presented to the BIA. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Shah's motion to reopen and the First Circuit did not have jurisdiction to consider freshly minted arguments not presented to the agency, so it both dismissed portions of petitioner's petition for lack of jurisdiction and denied the petition for review as to other claims. View "Shah v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the IJ's denial of his application for statutory withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. The court denied the petition for review as to statutory withholding where petitioner did not show that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground because the court did not recognize economic extortion as a form of persecution under immigration law nor does it recognize wealthy Salvadorians as a protected group; granted the petition for review as to CAT protection where neither the BIA nor the IJ considered the alternative view of the evidence showing that the extortionists may have received their information about petitioner from other government officials acting in their official capacities; and remanded for further consideration of the petition for CAT protection. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that she was subject to removal and ineligible for relief from deportation because she knowingly filed a frivolous application for asylum. The court denied the petition for review where petitioner received notice consistent with the Immigration and Naturalization Act's, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6) and (d)(4), requirement that she be notified of the consequences of filing a frivolous asylum application at the time of its filing. View "Ruga v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, appealed the IJ's determination that he was ineligible to apply for cancellation of removal to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ that petitioner's auto-burglary conviction, as a conviction for an aggravated felony, rendered him ineligible to apply for cancellation of removal. The court made explicit what was dictum in Lopez-Elias v. Reno and joined its sister circuits in holding that a conviction for unauthorized entry of a vehicle with intent to commit a theft therein constituted a conviction for an attempted theft offense, which, under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(U) and 1229b(a)(3), rendered petitioner ineligible to apply for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners were brothers and natives and citizens of Guatemala. While they lived in Guatemala, their father was kidnapped and murdered by the family of a business associate. Petitioners had paid a ransom to the kidnappers, but threats against Petitioners continued, and Petitioners fled to the United States. Petitioners subsequently filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal, asserting that they were persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group, which they defined as their immediate family. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the applications, concluding that the harm Petitioners suffered in Guatemala was not on account of their membership in a protected social group and that it was less likely than not that they would be tortured by government authorities upon returning to their home country. The First Circuit reversed, holding that the BIA’s conclusion as to the asylum claim was legally flawed and not supported by the record. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Aldana-Ramos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, became a lawful permanent resident of the Untied States in 1990. At issue was whether the BIA correctly found petitioner removable as an aggravated felon, even though the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles had earlier pardoned petitioner for the conviction that rendered him removable. The court concluded that petitioner's pardon did not reinstate his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, a privilege he lost under Georgia law as a result of his conviction. Therefore, petitioner did not receive a "full" pardon, and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(vi) does not apply. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Castillo v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law