Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Bulgarian citizen, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's adverse credibility finding and denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to remand where he did not provide any evidence supporting his motion nor did he even explain why he believed that 8 U.S.C. 208.6 had been violated; the IJ acted within his discretion when he admitted a letter summarizing a State Department investigation into evidence and relied on it to find that the subpoenas petitioner submitted were fraudulent; the adverse credibility finding based on the fraudulent subpoenas was supported by substantial evidence; because petitioner's claim was based on his mistreatment by the Bulgarian police, the fact that the subpoenas were fraudulent goes to the heart of his claim of persecution; petitioner's testimony was not credible and he did not present other evidence that met his burden to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if sent back to Bulgaria; and, therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Angov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without admission or parole. In 2005, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Petitioner as removable. After a hearing in 2008 at which Petitioner did not appear, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen in order to submit an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration court granted the motion to reopen. A few days before the deadline for her application, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance seeking additional time to file the application. After the deadline had passed, the immigration court denied the motion for continuance and held that Petitioner had abandoned the application for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) the immigration court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. View "Soto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's final order of removal. The court concluded that neither the IJ nor the BIA abused their discretion in holding that petitioner had waived her application for relief and protection where she did not file her application for relief by the extended due date for her applications set by the IJ. Further, petitioner abandoned her application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(H) and she was ineligible for such a waiver where she was being deported because she was convicted of falsifying documents, not because she was inadmissible at entry. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Taggar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Russian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition, concluding that petitioner met his burden of presenting evidence that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to control the nongovernmental actors who persecuted him because he was a homosexual; in order to obtain relief petitioner requested, he was not required to demonstrate that the Russian government sponsored or condoned the persecution of homosexuals or was unwilling for that reason to control persecution; and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision denying cancellation of removal and the BIA's decision not to reopen his case. The IJ concluded that petitioner had not met his burden of proving the ten years of continuous presence required for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the IJ's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings was expressly premised on the same erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the court remanded Case No. 11-1833 for further proceedings. Because the court could not review the BIA's exercise of discretion denying cancellation of removal, the court dismissed Case No. 10-4100. View "Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order dismissing her appeal from the IJ's order finding her ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that petitioner's testimony was not credible and that she had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that she was the victim of a forced abortion. The BIA agreed with the IJ's decision in all pertinent parts. The court concluded that the agency's finding was supported by substantial evidence and was not manifestly contrary to law. Therefore, the court affirmed the denial of petitioner's claim for asylum and for protection under the CAT. Petitioner also failed to meet the more stringent burden of proof required to qualify for withholding of removal. Further, the court concluded that petitioner's argument, that her due process rights were violated by the IJ's decision allowing the government to submit supplemental evidence after the merits hearing, was without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lin v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for removal because his conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(J). The language in the indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing order was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was convicted of an offense coming within the definition of "aggravated felony." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the BIA did not err in determining that the Arizona conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. View "Murillo-Prado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal. The record reflected that the members of petitioner's family were killed or kidnapped due to their failure to cooperate with drug traffickers or were the victims of criminal activity. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his membership in a particular social group and the harm he feared in Mexico. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's determination that petitioner did not establish either past persecution or that he would more likely than not be persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group if returned to Mexico. The court denied the petition for review. View "Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from an IJ's order denying their motion to suppress evidence and terminate deportation proceedings. Petitioners argued that they alleged sufficient facts before the IJ to demonstrate that the entry and search of their home was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation such that the statements and passports they provided during the search should be suppressed. The court held that, even if petitioners have alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, they did not allege a prima facie case of egregiousness to warrant exclusion of evidence in the deportation context. Further, there was no Fifth Amendment violation for the failure to conduct a hearing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Fernandez, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law