Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order vacating the IJ's grant of asylum based on his well-founded fear of persecution as a member of a particular social group. The BIA concluded that petitioner's purported social group, individuals taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority, lacked the requisite particularity and social visibility. The court then issued an en banc decision, Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, holding that witnesses who testify against gang members may be cognizable as a particular social group for the purposes of asylum. The BIA then issued two published decisions clarifying its interpretation of the phrase "particular social group": Matter of W-G-R-, and Matter of M-E-V-G-. The court concluded that, in this instance, the BIA did not perform the required evidence-based inquiry as to whether the relevant society recognizes petitioner's proposed social group. The BIA failed to consider how Guatemalan society views the proposed group, and did not consider the society-specific evidence submitted by petitioner. Because it was not clear to the court from the record whether the evidence presented by petitioner was sufficient to meet the revised standard in W-G-R- and M-E-V-G-, the court remanded the petition to the BIA to consider petitioner's asylum claim in light of those decisions. Because petitioner's claims for withholding of deportation was denied solely on the basis of his failure to satisfy the burden required for asylum, that claim was also remanded. The court advised the BIA to consider the petition in light of Henriquez-Rivas, which addressed a group comparable to petitioner's proposed group and found it to be potentially cognizable. The court remanded petitioner's Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim to the BIA for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further consideration. View "Pirir-Boc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Barbados, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for illegal reentry in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). At issue was whether the Supreme Court's ruling in Vartelas v. Holder required the court to find that defendant was eligible for relief from deportation under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The court held that deeming noncitizens like defendant ineligible for section 212(c) relief merely because they were convicted after trial would have an impermissible retroactive effect because it would impermissibly attach new legal consequences to conviction that pre-date the repeal of section 212(c). In this instance, the court found that the district court erred because defendant was erroneously found to be ineligible for relief under section 212(c). The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gill" on Justia Law

Georgieva and her husband Dimitrov, Bulgarian citizens, were admitted to the U.S. in 2002 under the visa waiver program and timely requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Because of continuances, they did not appear before an immigration judge until 2011. Georgieva described bullying she experienced as a Roma child; not being admitted to college because she was Roma; being tricked by her employer and “forced to have sex with a strange man who paid for her like she was meat;” having the police refuse to act; becoming involved Euroroma, which advocates for Roma rights in Europe; receiving threats from associates of her former boss; being abducted outside the Euroroma office and beaten; and being denied medical attention. Dimitrov testified that Georgieva suffered from pain and headaches as a result of the beating. Both testified that they fear persecution if returned to Bulgaria; their families have left that country. They have American-born sons, aged six and 10. The older son has been diagnosed with autism. The immigration judge noted many discrepancies in the testimony, found that there was not enough corroborating documentary evidence, and ordered the couple removed to Bulgaria. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Georgieva v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal entered by the BIA. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determinations, affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner did not provide credible testimony that he entered the United States by car in 2004, and that petitioner was removable because he failed to prove he had been inspected and admitted as he claimed. The I-213 provided strong evidence that petitioner entered the United States afoot without inspection or admission. The IJ and BIA also articulated specific reasons to discredit petitioner's testimony based on discrepancies and contradictions. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Diaz-Perez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, entered the United States without inspection in 1993. Federal authorities soon served Petitioner with a show-cause order charging removability. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled removal hearing, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of deportation in absentia. Several years later, Petitioner moved to reopen the proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely, concluding that Petitioner had waited too long past the 180-day deadline for such motions to file his motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. More than eight years later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen directly with the BIA. The BIA denied the second motion to reopen, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Almost three years later, Petitioner filed a third motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluding that no plausible justification existed for relieving Petitioner from the 180-day deadline. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA acted within its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s third motion to reopen was untimely. View "Wang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully in 2003, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. After a hearing on the merits, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and that rejection of Petitioner’s claim for withholding must follow from the defeat of Petitioner’s asylum claim. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Haldar, an Indian citizen, came to the U.S. in 1999 and has been a permanent resident since 2006. He founded GVS-Milwaukee, a Hare Krishna religious society and, from 2004 to 2007, GVS sponsored 25 applicants for religious-worker “R-1 visas,” 8 C.F.R. 214.2(r)(1), 17 of which were approved. In 2007 the State Department advised the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that GVS-Milwaukee might be involved in visa fraud. DHS also received a similar anonymous tip and began an investigation that included temple visits, surveillance, searches of Haldar’s luggage on international trips, and interviews with GVS-sponsored visa recipients. In 2010 Haldar was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. under 18 U.S.C. 371. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments (not raised in the district court) that certain statements from the prosecutor and a government witness improperly called into question the validity of his temple and were unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the prosecutor misrepresented testimony during his closing argument and relied on facts outside the record; and the district court on its own initiative should have instructed the jury not to scrutinize the religious qualifications of the visa recipients. View "United States v. Haldar" on Justia Law

Defendant is a United States citizen with a history of convictions for smuggling illegal aliens. At issue was whether defendant encouraged or induced an illegal alien to reside in the United States or aided and abetted the commission of this crime merely by escorting that alien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle. The court concluded that encouraging an illegal alien to reside in the United States must mean something more than merely transporting such an alien within this country. On this scant record, no rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant encouraged an illegal alien to reside in the United States. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to prove that defendant aided and abetted the commission of the crime. The court vacated the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "United States v. Thum" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, seeking a judgment of acquittal. The court concluded that so long as the documents in an A-file have been properly admitted in the criminal case, and the jury has been instructed as to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which is higher than the standard required in a deportation hearing, such documents may be considered by the jury and, depending on their contents, may constitute sufficient proof of alienage if the jury so concludes. Under Jackson v. Virginia, the jury verdict must stand where, as here, after receiving proper instructions, the jury concluded that defendant was guilty on all elements of illegal reentry and the verdict was supported with sufficient evidence. A rational trier of fact could certainly come to the conclusion that the Form I-213 was accurate. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying a judgment of acquittal and affirmed. View "United States v. Ruiz-Lopez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Nepal, was subject to removal proceedings. In 2010, Petitioner conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and, alternatively, voluntary departure. In support of his petition, Petitioner presented evidence to the immigration judge (IJ) that he suffered a single beating by a group of Maoists in 2003. The IJ denied the application for asylum, concluded that Petitioner also failed to establish a claim for either withholding of removal or protection under CAT, and granted his alternative request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that Petitioner’s claims did not establish past persecution and that he did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of asylum, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that Petitioner did not establish past persecution and that he lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Thapaliya v. Holder" on Justia Law