Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Chinese citizen, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that substantial evidence does not support the agency's finding that the discrepancy in dates undermined petitioner's credibility; the IJ committed several errors in her treatment of petitioner's marriage to a United States citizen; and, applying Ren v. Holder, the court held that the IJ erred because she did not provide notice to petitioner that he was required to present corroborating evidence she referred to in her decision nor did she give him an opportunity to explain why such evidence might be unavailable. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded. View "Zhi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection sometime in 1999 or 2000. In 2006, Petitioner was charged with removability. In 2011, Petitioner conceded removability and filed an application for withholding of removal, arguing that he would be targeted for extortion and violence by Guatemalan gangs because he had stayed in the United States for an extended period and thus would be perceived as wealthy upon his return to Guatemala. An Immigration Judge denied Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner had failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group and could not show a “clear probability” that he would likely be persecuted upon returning to Guatemala. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the Court’s past precedent, as well as with its own. View "Sam v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, came to the United States without a visa or other valid entry document. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that she opposed China’s population control policy and would be forced to undergo involuntary sterilization if she were returned to China. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge found that Petitioner was not credible, denied all forms of relief, and ordered Petitioner removed to China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the removal proceedings, which the BIA denied as untimely. More than seven years after her first untimely motion and almost twelve years after she was first ordered removed to China, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen, alleging a material change in country conditions. The BIA denied Petitioner’s motion, concluding that Petitioner’s second motion to reopen was untimely and number-barred under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) and not subject to any exceptions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s petition. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where petitioner failed to produce documents that were previously unavailable to her 2010 merits hearing and that were material to the outcome of the proceeding. She failed to demonstrate the likely impact of any economic sanctions imposed for her violations of China's one-child policy or the probability that she would be subject to sterilization in her particular province. Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for her substantive asylum eligibility. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the BIA evaluated her exhibits too strictly where the court noted that the BIA correctly found that petitioner's documents from China were not sufficiently authenticated in any manner and were therefore not considered genuine, authentic, and objectively reasonable evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Chen v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, was charged with removability because he was a noncitizen who overstayed his tourist visa. Petitioner conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he feared returning to Indonesia because he believed he would be subjected to persecution due to his Christian faith. The Immigration Judge denied all relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen asylum proceedings, concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a change in country circumstances that would excuse the untimeliness of his motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen. View "Simarmata v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indonesian citizen of Chinese descent, sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court joined its sister circuits and held that a petitioner's untimely motion to reopen may qualify under the changed conditions exception in 8 C.F.R. 1003(c)(3)(ii), even if the changed country conditions are made relevant by a change in the petitioner's personal circumstances. In this case, petitioner converted to Christianity after his order of removal became final. Petitioner then filed an untimely motion to reopen on the basis that religions persecution against Christians in Indonesia had worsened since his previous hearing. The court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings because the BIA failed to consider petitioner's evidence of changed conditions in Indonesia in light of his conversion to Christianity. View "Chandra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, was charged with removability. An Immigration Judge (IJ) eventually ordered Petitioner removed to Haiti. Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, alleging that because he had been granted temporary protected status (TPS) he was no longer removable, and that, at a minimum, his case should be administratively closed. The IJ denied the motion, concluding that Petitioner’s receipt of TPS was not a material change justifying reopening his case and that Petitioner’s TPS status did not warrant reopening the case so that the proceedings could be administratively terminated. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s subsequent appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not commit legal error when it refused to reopen Petitioner’s removal proceedings so that they could be administratively closed based on Petitioner’s grant of TPS. View "Donnee v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Marshall Islands, sought review of the BIA's order reversing the IJ's finding that he was eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner fled the Marshall Islands as a teenager after being sexually assaulted and beaten as a homeless, homosexual child. The authorities there allegedly did nothing to intervene. Petitioner was later convicted in California state court of assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm and of battery with serious bodily injury following a fight with his then-boyfriend. The court concluded that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the BIA's conclusion that petitioner would not likely be subjected to torture based on his sexual orientation if removed to the Marshall Islands; the BIA's interpretation of the State Department Report, which found that the Marshall Islands have no enforced proscriptions on homosexuality, was entitled to deference; and the BIA was not required to presume that petitioner would be tortured again because of his own credible testimony that he had been subjected to torture as a homeless child. The court also concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner's assault-and-battery convictions were particularly serious crimes. Just because a sentencing enhancement cannot be considered for the purpose of determining whether the crime is an aggravated felony does not imply that it cannot be considered for purposes of determining whether the crime is particularly serious. The BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning. The court concluded, in light of Delgado v. Holder, that the IJ properly considered the two-year enhancement under the Frentescu factors. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Konou v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment charging attempted entry after deportation. The court applied the modified categorical approach and held that defendant's state conviction for aggravated assault constituted a crime of violence. Consequently, defendant was not eligible for voluntary departure at his February 2005 immigration hearing. Accordingly, defendant's attempt to attack collaterally the deportation order underlying his illegal reentry conviction because he was not adequately advised of the voluntary departure remedy failed. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Cabrera-Perez" on Justia Law

In 2011 Cadapan, a citizen of the Philippines and a lawful permanent U.S. resident, was convicted of indecent assault with a person less than 13 years of age, indecent assault without consent, corruption of minors, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not less than three months nor more than 23 months and supervised probation for 36 months, In 2012, Cadapan was granted parole and was transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, which charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien who, after admission, was convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A) and with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), as an alien convicted of a crime of child abuse. He argued that the Pennsylvania statute for indecent assault encompassed conduct that could not be considered sexual abuse of a minor under the federal statute. The Immigration Judge rejected this argument. The BIA dismissed Cadapan’s appeal. The Third Circuit dismissed and also rejected an argument that the statute did not apply because Cadapan had not been admitted to the U.S. as not having been raised below. View "Cadapan v. Att'y Gen. of U.S." on Justia Law