Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Mayorga, a native of El Salvador, entered the U.S. as a teenager in 1988 because of the then on-going civil war in El Salvador. He applied for asylum in 1995, and has had work authorization since then. He married a U.S. citizen and has five children under the age of 15, all U.S. citizens. In 2010, Mayorga pled guilty to engaging in the unlicensed business of firearms dealing, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2), and was sentenced to 46 months in prison. When he was released, the Department of Homeland Security served Mayorga with notice of removal proceedings, alleging two grounds: under 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a)(6)(A)(i), as an alien present in the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled, and having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). At his hearing Mayorga contested his removability for having been convicted of a CIMT and applied for cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied each application, reasoning that if Mayorga’s crime was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, he would likely be ineligible for cancellation of removal under the “person of good moral character” requirement, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(B). The BIA upheld the decision. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that Mayorga would suffer a serious adverse consequence if his crime were found to be a categorical CIMT, and that his challenge was therefore justiciable. Mayorga’s crime was not categorically a CIMT.View "Mayorga v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

In 1999, Petitioner admitted to a single count of shoplifting in Massachusetts state court. In 2012, Petitioner admitted to an amended charge of larceny by inducement. The following year, Petitioner was charged with removability as an alien who has been convicted of or admits to having committed "a crime involving moral turpitude.” Petitioner applied for special rule cancellation, arguing that he fell within the petty offense exception because his shoplifting conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude. The Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that the IJ properly found that Petitioner’s shoplifting conviction was, in addition to the larceny conviction, a crime involving moral turpitude, making him ineligible for the petty offense exception. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not provide a comprehensive analysis to support its conclusion Petitioner’s shoplifting conviction was also a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the case must be remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Mejia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a national of Eritrea, requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he fled Eritrea to escape an assignment within the country's National Service program, which he asserts is a program of human trafficking and not a legitimate program of military conscription. The IJ denied petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal, but granted his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed. The court recognized that the evidence indicated the practices of the Eritrean government in enforcing its program of National Service were coercive and disturbing; the court noted that some of the evidence submitted in support of petitioner's motion to remand indicated that refusal to participate in National Service may be imputed as political opposition to the Government; but, however, the court could not say that the IJ's finding was unsupported by substantial evidence, nor could the court say that the BIA's denial of the motion was irrational or arbitrary. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Milat v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's order finding her inadmissible for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and thus ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied relief because DHS may rely on subsequent convictions to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving that a returning alien is applying for admission. View "Munoz v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Sheya and Mtandazo Mandebvu are school teachers who spoke out criticizing Robert Mugabe’s violent and corrupt Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party and government. Sheva came to the U.S. in 1999 and earned two masters’ degrees by 2006, never returning to Zimbabwe. Mtandazo came to the U.S. with their two children in 2000 after being forced into hiding for her political activities in Zimbabwe. Other family members have also been beaten, detained, or threatened. As they grew more concerned with deteriorating conditions in Zimbabwe, Sheya and Mtandazo became politically active with ZANU-PF’s opposition in the U.S. They attempted to file for asylum in 2005 but, through no fault of their own, the applications were never filed. They were served with notices that they were subject to removal in 2007 and filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal in 2008. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of the Mandebvus’ applications The Sixth Circuit remanded, finding that the decision that the asylum applications were untimely was infected by legal error and that the evidence showed that it is likely that the Mandebvus will be persecuted for their political opinion or tortured if returned to Zimbabwe.View "Mandebvu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Halim, a citizen of Indonesia, came to the U.S in 2000. After his visa expired, he stayed without applying for legal residency. In 2005, DHS detained Halim and initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). Halim sought asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that if he was forced to return to Indonesia, he would be subject to persecution because of his Chinese ethnicity and Christian beliefs. The State Department 2010 Human Rights Report for Indonesia indicated that its government officially promoted racial and ethnic tolerance, but laws and regulations still had discriminatory effects on ethnic Chinese; its Religious Freedom Report documented religious abuses between 2008 and 2010. Internet articles detailed religious attacks on Christians and continued discrimination against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. Halim’s father and four of his siblings still lived and owned businesses in Indonesia. The IJ ordered deportation, finding the asylum application untimely as filed more than one year after his arrival. The evidence did not demonstrate: that Halim had personally suffered past persecution or would face a clear probability of future persecution if returned to Indonesia or that a pattern or practice of persecution against Chinese Christians as a group existed in Indonesia. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit rejected a petition for review. View "Halim v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Peru, sought review of a 2011 order of the BIA affirming a 2009 decision of the IJ, which pretermitted his application for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), and for a waiver under the former INA 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court concluded that petitioner was properly deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) and a single confusing reference to a Class B misdemeanor did not compel a different conclusion. The court saw no basis for concluding that Vartelas v. Holder overruled Domond v. INS sub silentio; the court adhered to Domond's teaching that the legal regime in force at the time of an alien's conviction determines whether an alien is entitled to seek section 212(c) relief; and because petitioner's conviction for a controlled substance post-dated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 et seq., he was ineligible for a waiver of deportation under section 212(c). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Centurion v. Holder" on Justia Law

Castro, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection when he was 14 years old. He was convicted of 11 offenses while he was in the U.S. between 1979 and 2001, six times for drug trafficking-related offenses. He was convicted twice of illegal entry. Castro was removed in 1980, 1981, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1997 and 1998. He reentered illegally after his last removal and has used 23 identities in encounters with law enforcement. In 2013, he was found as part of a Fugitive Operations program that uses public records to locate illegal aliens. He pleaded guilty to illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). A probation officer assigned a base offense level of 8 and a 16-level enhancement under Guideline 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because Castro had been convicted of a drug trafficking offense for which the sentence imposed exceeded 13 months’ imprisonment. He had 13 criminal history points, placing him in category VI. His advisory sentencing range was 77–96 months’ imprisonment. Castro argued that his criminal history occurred many years ago and that he had rehabilitated himself, as demonstrated by his family circumstances and work history. The court imposed a 77-month sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court erred by not expressly addressing his “fast-track disparity” argument at sentencing and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable in light of his proffered mitigation factors.View "United States v. Castro-Alvarado" on Justia Law

In August 2011, the Department updated the special procedures that establish the minimum wages and working conditions employers must offer U.S. sheepherders, goatherders, and open-range (cattle) herders before hiring foreign herders. Plaintiffs, U.S. workers experienced in herding claimed that the Department administers the temporary worker visa program in a way that gives herding operations access to inexpensive foreign labor without protecting U.S. workers. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that plaintiffs lacked both Article III and prudential standing to bring this action where plaintiffs were injured by the Department's promulgation of the Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) and fell within the zone of interests protected by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1188(a)(1). On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to entry of summary judgment in their favor where the Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, by promulgating TEGLs without providing public notice and an opportunity for comment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Mendoza, et al. v. Harris, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's decision, which substantially adopted the IJ's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner failed to testify that she was physically abused during her detention until she was prompted to do so by her attorney. The court concluded that, because this inconsistency was sufficient to support the IJ's adverse credibility finding, the court need not comment on the remaining grounds cited by the BIA. Petitioner's withholding of removal and CAT claims also failed. Petitioner also claimed that the IJ deprived her of her due process right to a full and fair hearing where the IJ abandoned her role as a neutral fact-finder and imposed "moral judgment" on petitioner's relationship with her roommate. The court concluded that, even if petitioner had shown that the IJ's questioning prevented her from reasonably presenting her case, she failed to articulate how this alleged violation of due process affected the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Jiang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law