Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's conclusion that he was inadmissible because there was reason to believe that he was a drug trafficker. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for review and dismissed the petition where a prior conviction was not required for an alien to be removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), and where DHS has shown through reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence that petitioner was engaged in illicit trafficking. View "Cuevas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that while in China, government family-planning officials forced her to abort her second pregnancy under China's one-child policy. The court held that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The IJ engaged in impermissible speculation and improperly relied on a minor inconsistency. As such, the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner did not establish past persecution. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zhang, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in El Salvador, applied for special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160, 2196. Petitioner subsequently sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's adverse credibility determination and denial of relief. The BIA determined that petitioner's admitted participation in a civil patrol, coupled with the government's evidence of human rights violations that occurred during the time and in the place that petitioner patrolled, was sufficient to trigger his burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the persecutor bar did not apply. The court held that the record contained evidence sufficient to trigger petitioner's burden, and the court agreed with the BIA and the IJ that petitioner did not meet his burden. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pastora v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native and citizen of India, sought review of USCIS's denial of her application for naturalization. The district court granted summary judgment to USCIS finding that plaintiff was ineligible for naturalization because she had not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and that she failed to demonstrate good moral character. The court found that plaintiff failed to show that she was legally entitled to the grant of the LPR status she received and concluded that she was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Therefore, plaintiff was ineligible for naturalization and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this ground. Accordingly, the court affirmed as to that portion of the district court's judgment. Because a failure to satisfy any one of the statutory prerequisites rendered an applicant ineligible for naturalization, the district court's finding of moral character was not essential to its grant of summary judgment. Accordingly, the court vacated that portion of the district court's judgment addressing plaintiff's good moral character. View "Injeti v. USCIS" on Justia Law

Chen faced deportation to Fujian Province and claimed to face a significant risk of persecution there because, since coming to the U.S. in 2002, she has given birth to two children in violation of China’s one‐child policy. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her petition for asylum. The Seventh Circuit upheld the denial, noting that the Chinese government recently announced that it will permit an urban husband and wife, at least one of whom was an only child, to have two children. Chen’s husband is not an only child; Chen testified that her mother‐in‐law was punished for violating the policy. There is no information on whether Chen is an only child or whether the new policy will be applied retroactively. Fujian Province seems to enforce the one‐child policy more strictly. Nonetheless, the BIA noted that forced sterilization has become very rare and noted that Chen could avoid penalty by not registering the children with the government as permanent residents of China. The children would not be entitled to free public education, subsidized health care, and other benefits, but Chen’s failure to present evidence concerning her financial situation “is a fatal weakness in her case.” View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision and rejecting his claim to automatic derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The BIA found petitioner removable on the basis of his prior criminal conviction for sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, as well as other criminal convictions. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of section 1432(a)(3) and concluded that petitioner's argument based on the constitutional avoidance canon was barred by the plain language of the statute; the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim based on purported legitimacy discrimination; and the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection claim based on gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pierre v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. The court concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in concluding that defendant was inadmissible because substantial evidence supported the finding that he has admitted to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, a law of the United States related to controlled substances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen proceedings in her immigration case. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claiming persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The BIA rejected petitioner's evidentiary submissions because she had not submitted a sworn statement in support of her motion and because her expert witness had not provided copies of the sources on which he relied. The court concluded that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attaching consequences to these previously unarticulated requirements in petitioner's case and, therefore, granted the petition for review. View "Indradjaja v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, who had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and, alternatively, post-hearing voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's requests for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Eight months later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen to allow him to apply for pre-hearing voluntary departure, but because the motion was filed beyond the time allotted by the applicable regulation, the motion was addressed to the BIA's sua sponte authority to reopen. The BIA denied the motion and subsequently refused reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the denial of reconsideration, holding that it lacked the authority to review the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reconsider the failure to grant relief where Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely. View "Charuc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Convicted in 1990 for aggravated criminal sexual abuse, Shah was ordered removed to India in 2005. He did not seek judicial review, but unsuccessfully moved for reconsideration, arguing that he should have been granted a waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1182(c) as it existed before its 1996 repeal. Shah has lived in India since 2007. In 2012 he moved to reopen the proceedings and, after the BIA denied that motion, brought a motion to reconsider. The BIA recognized that it had authority to reopen but remarked that Shah’s situation did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, because of the nature of his crime and also because Shah is no longer in the U.S. The Seventh Circuit dismissed petitions for review, noting the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen. An IJ and the BIA concluded in 2005 that, as a matter of administrative discretion, Shah would not receive section 212(c) relief even if he were in the category of those still eligible for consideration because of the nature of his crime against a child. View "Shah v. Holder" on Justia Law