Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Cabrera entered the U.S. without inspection in 2001. After a 2009 arrest, he applied for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231 saying that he feared return to Mexico because of threats and mistreatment by his wife, who holds local office. Cabrera stated that he feared his wife would use political influence to have people cause him harm, including torture at the hands of Mexican law enforcement. He asserted membership in a particular social group: “individuals who face persecution by corrupt governmental and law enforcement authorities instigated by a politically connected spouse” and applied for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge found his testimony credible but denied his applications, finding that Cabrera had not proposed a valid social group because he did not identify a shared characteristic aside from persecution and had not shown that he would be harmed based on his membership in that group. The judge concluded that his wife had “a personal vendetta” and that Cabrera could not show a likelihood of torture because he had not been injured and had not shown that his wife ever followed through on her threats. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review. A “particular social group” must be linked by something more than persecution. Substantial evidence supports a conclusion that his wife tried to hurt Cabrera out of personal animosity. View "Ruiz-Cabrera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that petitioner's application for asylum was time-barred. The IJ denied withholding of removal or relief under the CAT because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was a member of any Christian church or had converted to Christianity and therefore could not demonstrate that she would be persecuted or tortured in China based on her religion. The court concluded that, given the suspicious timing of petitioner's alleged conversion to Christianity and her lack of evidence proving that she was a member of the St. Louis Chinese Baptist Church, minor translation errors relating to Baptist religious practices or the Bible or the harassment of petitioner's Christian friends in China would not undermine the IJ's decision. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Yang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, Nova Flora Marsadu and Roly Rondonuwu, were a married couple who were native citizens of Indonesia. Marsadu, and later Rondonuwu, filed applications for asylum based on their fears of being persecuted in Indonesia due to their Christian faith. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners later filed an untimely motion with the BIA to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that they were prima facie eligible for asylum due to recent changes in Indonesia’s conditions that put them at risk of persecution. The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings, concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would face religious persecution if they returned to Indonesia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to warrant reopening of their removal proceedings. View "Marsadu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Jyotsnaben Patel was admitted to the U.S. in 1992 as a nonimmigrant visitor; her husband, Pravin, entered illegally six months later. They applied for asylum and were charged with removability: Jyotsnaben because she had overstayed her visa, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), and Pravin under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(I). An immigration judge found them not credible, denied the applications, and granted voluntary departure. The Patels failed to comply, which rendered them inadmissible for 10 years, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A). With no brief on file, the BIA dismissed an appeal in 2004 and ordered them to leave within 30 days. Still in the U.S. seven years later, they sought to stay removal for humanitarian reasons. ICE granted their application permitting them to remain for one year. Instead of seeking to adjust status, the Patels moved to reopen the removal proceedings in May 2013, so that they could seek government consent to have the proceedings administratively closed. After that, the Patels believed, they could seek a provisional waiver of inadmissibility on the basis of their citizen-daughter, then travel abroad to apply for a visa to return legally. DHS opposed and the BIA denied the motion, as filed after the 90-day period for motions to reopen. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of his removal order under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C., 110 Stat. 3009-546. Petitioner argued that the Act cannot retroactively eliminate his right to renew his application for relief from reinstatement. The court rejected petitioner's argument because he did nothing before the Act's effective date ten years later. Although petitioner's initial application for adjustment of status was denied on the merits in 1987, he did nothing to renew his application during the decade that passed before the Act would become effective. Accordingly, the court denied the petition where petitioner had no vested right. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after he was deported because of an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the government failed to prove his physical departure from the United States on March 7, 1992 airline flight from JFK Airport to Kingston, Jamaica. The court held that a properly executed warrant of deportation, coupled with testimony regarding the deportation procedures followed at that time, was sufficient proof that a defendant was, in fact physically deported from the United States. In this instance, the warrant of deportation specifically indicated that the immigration officer "witnessed" defendant's departure, and set forth the date, flight number, and time it was affected. Further, defendant stipulated that he signed the warrant and that it contained his fingerprints. Accordingly, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Harvey" on Justia Law

In 1984, Petitioner, a citizen of Colombia, was admitted to the U.S. at age 20 as a lawful permanent resident. He married a U.S. citizen and has a son, also a citizen. Until 2009, Petitioner lived without incident. In 2009, he was stopped at a checkpoint near North Hudson, New York, with two passengers in his car. Petitioner admitted that he was aware they were illegal aliens, that he had picked them on the U.S. side of the border, that he was to be paid $1,000 to drive them to Queens, and that he had performed such work twice before. Petitioner was charged with Bringing In and Harboring Aliens, 8 U.S.C.1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. 2, and Transporting Illegal Aliens, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(i). Charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), based on conviction for an aggravated felony, Petitioner applied for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). The government conceded that an aggravated felony conviction does not, alone, render an alien ineligible for adjustment of status, but urged that conviction under 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) rendered him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 182(a)(6)(E)(i), as “an alien who … knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of law.” The IJ denied adjustment of status. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit reversed. Petitioner’s conduct did not constitute encouraging, inducing, assisting, abetting, or aiding another alien to enter the U.S. View "Parra-Rojas v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with attempted reentry after a prior removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that defendant's removal as an alien "not admitted or paroled" as alleged in the Notice to Appear was not "fundamentally unfair" where the termination of his temporary resident status returned him to the status of an inadmissible alien subject to removal; defendant was foreclosed from demonstrating prejudice because INA 212(h) did not provide relief for aliens removed for illegal presence in the United States without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), the sole basis of defendant's removal; and defendant did not preserve his claim that the IJ failed to advise him of his right to counsel and/or obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel. Finally, the district court's imposition of a below-Guidelines fine was not procedurally erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hernandez-Arias" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Bahamas, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's third-degree assault conviction in Minnesota constituted an aggravated felony. As an aggravated felon, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). Having held that 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) was susceptible to multiple interpretations, the court deferred to the BIA's reasonable construction that section 1182(h) relief was unavailable for any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony after acquiring lawful permanent resident status, without regard to the manner in which such status was acquired. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's equal protection challenge to the BIA's construction of section 1182(h) where disagreements among the courts of appeal, or between an agency and one or more of the courts of appeal, would not by itself create an equal protection violation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Roberts v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's order dismissing his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner has not presented any evidence indicating that persons who identify gang members to police suffered greater crime than other members of the population who resisted gang violence. Therefore, petitioner's attempt to define a cognizable social group on this basis failed for lack of both particularity and visibility. Petitioner's proffered political status also failed; nothing in the record suggested that MS-13 targeted petitioner for political reasons; and therefore, the BIA's legal determinations were correct and substantial evidence supported its decision to deny withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A). Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny relief under the CAT where the record did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Somoza Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law