Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner in this case was a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. In 2007, an immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordered Petitioner removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. In 2010, Petitioner moved to reopen her case, alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied the motion. In 2012, more than three years after the BIA had affirmed Petitioner’s order of removal, Petitioner filed another motion to reopen, along with related relief, again alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied relief, concluding that Petitioner’s proof did not show changed country conditions, that she had not shown prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal, asylum, or CAT relief, and that no exceptional circumstances justified exercising its discretion to reopen on its own. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA did not reversibly err in concluding that Petitioner’s second reopen motion was barred by her failure to show a material adverse change in country conditions. View "Perera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Colombian national, obtained a tourist visa to enter the United States. Petitioner overstayed her visa, after which federal authorities initiated removal proceedings against her. Petitioner conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the United National Convention Against Torture, claiming that she had been persecuted, and would face future persecution, on account of her status as the expatriate widow of a slain narco-trafficker. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) entered a final order denying Petitioner asylum and ordering her removed to her homeland. The First Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the final order of removal and denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err in invoking the REAL ID Act’s corroboration requirements to her asylum application; and (2) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Moreno v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New Hampshire arrested six aliens who had prior criminal convictions or arrests. The arrests were part of a nationwide enforcement program. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, requested the names and addresses of the six individuals arrested in New Hampshire. The ICE provided the Union Leader with I-213 forms from which the aliens’ names, addresses, and other personal information had been redacted. The Union Leader subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint to compel disclosure of the arrestees’ names and addresses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ICE, concluding that FOIA exempted the requested information from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of the arrestees’ privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the arrestees’ privacy interests, and therefore, the withheld information subject to this appeal was not exempt from disclosure. Remanded. View "Union Leader Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. " on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. Petitioner sought asylum on the ground that his wife had suffered a forcible abortion and had been sterilized. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision where a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to find either that petitioner offered resistance to China's one-child policy or that he suffered persecution. The court also concluded that remand for further proceedings to gather and submit evidence in support of his application under Matter of J-S- was not necessary where petitioner had an opportunity to seek remand and may not wait until this point to make such a request. The particularized facts of this case did not support petitioner's tardy request for remand where there was no reason to believe that he would be able to supply new evidence now. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "He v. Holder" on Justia Law

Saldana entered the U.S. at age 7, became a lawful permanent resident at 20, but was charged with removability at 34, in 2003, for committing an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), and a controlled-substance offense. He argued that mere possession of cocaine was not a drug-trafficking crime, and thus not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B) that would render him ineligible for discretionary relief. The IJ denied his application for cancellation of removal. Saldana did not appeal and was removed to Mexico. The agency precedent on which the IJ relied was overturned three years later by the Supreme Court. By then Saldana had reentered illegally and was again convicted of possessing cocaine. After his 2011 release Saldana was charged with illegal presence in the U.S. after removal, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(1), but sought dismissal based on deficiencies in the underlying removal order. The district court denied the motion, finding that he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies; that his lawyer never promised to appeal; that Saldana did not take advantage of remedies available at the time (habeas corpus) and did not justify these failures other than asserting lack of legal knowledge; and that he could not show that removal was fundamentally unfair because he had no due-process right to apply for discretionary relief. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Despite being informed of his rightsl, he did not file an appeal or ask his lawyer to do so, nor did he exhaust available remedies by a motion to reopen. View "United States v. Alegeria-Saldana" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on petitioner's various lies to U.S. officials and to the district court judge, especially about her identity and country of origin, and petitioner's equivocation during her interview with the IJ. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief under withholding of removal because petitioner could not overcome the adverse credibility determination where the IJ considered the additional corroborating documents presented by petitioner and found them to be insufficient to rehabilitate her testimony that she was a victim of domestic abuse. The court deferred to the IJ and BIA's conclusion that relief under the CAT was unavailable. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The petitioner uses two names (Tarsem Singh and Simranjit Singh) and has used different birth certificate translations, listing birthdates that differ by as much as four years. He has passports showing both identities and has claimed three different dates of entry. In 1997, Singh was detained by INS. Singh asserts that he then spoke very little English and did not understand the agents. Charging documents indicate that he had counsel, but he claims that that and other information on the documents was incorrect. After his release, Singh’s father created a new identity for him. INS mailed notice of his immigration hearing to his employer’s address, but there is no evidence that Singh ever received it. Singh was ordered deported in absentia. In 2010, the immigration court granted Singh’s motion to reopen. Singh argued that, contrary to the I‐213, he was only 15 in 1997 so that his detention violated INS regulations and his due process rights and that he had been inspected and admitted into the U.S., so that he was eligible for adjustment of status, 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). The IJ ruled that Singh was removable. The BIA agreed, reasoning that even if Singh was 15 when he was detained, he was properly served with notice. INS regulations do not require service in the respondent’s native language, and personal service is effective for minors over age 14. The Seventh Circuit denied review. His claims hinged on establishing that he really was Tarsem and was 15 years old in 1997, which he could not do. Singh also could not establish that he was inspected and admitted when he entered this country.View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple who are natives and citizens of India, appealed the BIA's decision denying their petition for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that Dilshad was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) because she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for fraudulent entry; Naseem's derivative application thus was also properly denied; and the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting or denying of discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal or voluntary departure where this appeal involved neither constitutional questions nor questions of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the remainder of the petition for want of jurisdiction. View "Sattani, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal of an IJ's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the agency's reasonable determination that petitioner was not credible under the totality of the circumstances: petitioner's non-responsive demeanor during cross-examination; affirmative misrepresentations of his residence for the purpose of gaining an advantage in forum; submission of a fraudulent church membership certification for the purpose of gaining an advantage in forum; and lack of detailed testimony. Accordingly, the court concluded that the agency properly denied asylum and withholding claims. The court denied the petition for review. View "Jin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault on a federal officer and illegally entering the United States. The court vacated the conviction for assault on a federal officer and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant was deported during the pendency of the appeal. The government requested that the court affirm the conviction, without prejudice to a later request by him to vacate the conviction, should he return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at retrial. The court saw no reason to apply United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, which only concerned resentencing. Given the government's authority to permit defendant to return for retrial, and counsel's assurances that defendant would be willing to do so, this case was unlikely to languish for an indefinite period before the district court, should the government choose to retry defendant. More importantly, defendant's conviction for assault on a federal officer will have been reversed, unless and until he should be retried, he must be presumed innocent of that charge. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Barrios-Siguenza" on Justia Law