Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

While R. was an investigator for Mexico’s Federal Agency of Investigation, he arrested hundreds of suspects and repeatedly testified against drug traffickers. Drug organizations tried to kill him. The Agency repeatedly transferred him, but threats soon resumed. He was wounded twice while on duty and eluded capture several times. Assassins shot at him, missed, and wounded his father. He quit the Agency, opened an office-supply business, and tried to conceal his former job. Strangers continued looking for him. He sought asylum in the U.S., contending that he had been persecuted as a member of the social group of honest police officers. The IJ denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed, distinguishing between honest police and effective honest police, reasoning that only if criminal organizations target all honest officers would R. be entitled to asylum, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). The Seventh Circuit vacated. The law calls for assessments of causation and risk. That R. is at more risk than that most “honest police” is a poor reason to disqualify him. The Board did not consider whether Mexico’s more-than-400,000 officers are willing and able to protect former colleagues. Nothing R. can do will erase his employment history. The court questioned why DHS wants to remove R. He appears to have led an exemplary life in the U.S. since entering (lawfully) and applying for asylum. View "R. R. D. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives and citizens of China, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and her husband's application for asylum and withholding of deportation. The court concluded that petitioner and her husband failed to show that the IJ and BIA erred in determining that the 2006 Tingjian Document- which ordered the sterilization of either petitioner or her husband when they returned to China - was unauthenticated, and therefore, the IJ and BIA did not err in giving it little or no weight; substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution where the BIA distinguished between U.S.-born and Chinese-born children for the purposes of enforcing China's family planning policy; and the court could not say that the record compelled a conclusion that there was a reasonable possibility that petitioner would face economic persecution if she returned to China. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Wu v. US Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, argued that he met the requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A) and was therefore eligible for cancellation of removal. Shortly before the statute's ten years of physical presence requirement would accrue, DHS served petitioner with a notice to appear. On appeal, petitioner's main argument was that the notice to appear was invalid and thus did not stop the accrual of the ten-year statutory period. The court concluded that petitioner's original notice to appeal was not invalid where the court deferred to the BIA's reasonable interpretation of the statute and noted that the notice to appear substantially complied with the requirements of section 1229(a); the IJ did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate removal proceedings; DHS had discretion to amend the charge; the court lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's contention that the IJ violated his procedural due process right by pretermitting his application for cancellation of removal, and because the court determined that deference to In re Camarillo was appropriate, the court need not reach the BIA's alternative rationale regarding fraud. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Urbina v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision finding him inadmissible and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that the conviction under which petitioner was convicted, California Health & Safety Code 11377(a), was a divisible statute under Descamps v. United States, and therefore, the court applied the modified categorical approach in analyzing his prior convictions. The court concluded that the government satisfied its burden in proving that petitioner was twice convicted of methamphetamine, a controlled substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner inadmissible based on his prior convictions. However, the court remanded because the BIA failed to address petitioner's due process claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and bias by the IJ. Finally, the court dismissed petitioner's unexhausted equal protection claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "Coronado v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on the IJ's finding of numerous discrepancies including petitioner's evasiveness and non-responsive explanations, and lack of corroborating evidence. Further, the BIA's decision that petitioner was not eligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence. Because the court upheld the agency's adverse credibility finding, petitioner could not prevail on his challenges to the IJ and BIA. Petitioner's asylum and withholding claims likewise failed, as they rested on his discredited testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "An v. Holder" on Justia Law

Tian, a 48‐year old Chinese citizen, was admitted to the U.S.in 2001, on a non‐immigrant visa, to participate in an international exchange program. He overstayed and, in 2007, was questioned during an investigation of human trafficking. There were in no charges, but Tian was placed in removal hearings. While the matter was pending, Tian pled guilty to drawing and passing a check with intent to defraud and was ordered to pay $100,000 in restitution; his sentence was suspended. Tian sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection, asserting that, in 1989, he participated in demonstrations and was detained by the police for 10 days, repeatedly assaulted, and undressed and tied to a tree for an entire day. After his release Tian had report to the Public Security Bureau regularly. Tian asserted that he was demoted from being a hotel manager to being a kitchen helper, and that his wife divorced him, because of persecution for his participation in the prodemocracy movement. He claimed that he failed to timely apply for asylum because of “language barriers” and “ignorance of U.S. laws.” Tian did not have documentation of participation in the demonstration, or his detention, or of subsequent medical treatment. The IJ and BIA rejected his claims. The Seventh Circuit dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, the conclusion that Tian’s asylum application was time‐barred. Because Tian did not exhaust administrative remedies with regard to his CAT claim, the court denied that claim. Tian failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal.View "Tian v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that petitioner's testimony was not credible where her demeanor undermined her credibility and her testimony was extremely superficial and could have easily been memorized. The IJ also concluded that petitioner's testimony was unpersuasive and not supported by reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence. Because the IJ's well-supported demeanor findings were entitled to special deference and the IJ appropriately considered the record as a whole and the totality of the circumstances, the court was not compelled to conclude that petitioner was credible. Therefore, the court deferred to the IJ's adverse credibility determination, and gave no weight to petitioner's testimony. The remaining evidence in the record did not compel the court to overturn the IJ's determination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Huang v. Holder" on Justia Law

L has lived in the U.S. since 1987 and was a victim of armed kidnapping and sexual assault, in 2006, because of her brother-in-law’s drug dealings. Drugs were subsequently found in her garage and, although she accepted a plea agreement to get probation and remain with her four children (U.S. citizens), she maintains that she was not involved in the drug trade. L applied for a U Visa under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, 114 Stat. 1464 to forestall her impending removal. The decision whether to grant a U Visa to a crime victim who is otherwise ineligible for admission is discretionary and is exercised through USCIS, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U). USCIS refused to waive her inadmissibility stemming from her uninspected entry and drug conviction. Facing certain removal, she asked the Immigration Judge to determine independently whether to waive her inadmissibility. The IJ declined and found that USCIS alone had jurisdiction to provide a waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit remanded to the IJ with instructions to consider the waiver request under 8 U.S.C. 1182, noting that ambiguities in the “labyrinthine statutory structure” should be resolved in favor of the alien. View "L. D. G. v. Holder." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a), seeking a declaration of U.S. nationality and the return of his Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and passport. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and the government appealed. The consular officer had erroneously applied the five-year rule under 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), instead of the ten-year rule, in granting plaintiff a CRBA. The court concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to documentary proof of U.S. citizenship because he was indisputably not a U.S. citizen. The court held that section 1503(a) allows a district court to grant just one type of relief: a declaration that a person is a U.S. national; the enactment of section 1504 did not change the citizenship rights provided by statute, and simply providing jurisdiction where none existed previously did not create an impermissible retroactive effect; and despite the considerable inequities in plaintiff's favor, the courts were simply unable to provide plaintiff the relief he seeks. According, the court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint. View "Hizam v. Kerry" on Justia Law

Aljabri, born in Jordan, married a U.S. citizen in 1997 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2000. In 2003, he sought naturalization under 8 U.S.C. 1430. USCIS conducted an interview and then delayed for nine years. In 2007 Aljabri was convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and structuring transactions not to trigger financial institution reporting requirements. He was sentenced to 84 months in prison. In 2008 DHS alleged that Aljabri was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), having been convicted of a crime causing victims a loss of more than $10,000. He was ordered removed in absentia. He filed suit, asking the district court either to naturalize him or declare him a U.S. citizen based on the still-pending 2003 application. The district court held that it lacked subject‐matter jurisdiction and dismissed in January, 2012. On May 3, 2012, USCIS denied the naturalization petition, stating that the final order of removal meant that he was no longer a lawful permanent resident and only permanent residents can be naturalized and that Aljabri could not demonstrate the good moral character necessary for naturalization. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The district court overlooked 8 U.S.C. 1447(b), which gives the court exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application until the matter is remanded to the agency. View "Aljabri v. Holder" on Justia Law