Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed a conviction of illegally reentering the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The court concluded that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed where he was not "found in" the United States in 2002, as he argued, but was instead "found" here in 2010. The court also concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed where the IJ relied upon multiple grounds for denying defendant relief and the court did not think clearly erroneous the district court's finding that evidence of defendant's cooperation was before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner did not present evidence of imputed political opinion that would compel any reasonable factfinder to conclude that petitioner was subject to persecution because of imputed political beliefs; the reports submitted by petitioner did not compel the conclusion that the Guatemalan government had acquiesced in torture against women, whether as a result of corruption or through cooperation with criminals; and, therefore, substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" a protected ground and that petitioner failed to establish the state action necessary for CAT relief. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Milian v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Armenia, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision declaring her asylum application frivolous. The BIA affirmed the IJ's determination that petitioner knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application and that she was statutorily barred from adjustment of status and a 8 U.S.C. 1182(i) waiver on that basis. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record that supported the IJ's and BIA's findings that petitioner received the required warnings and petitioners' arguments to the contrary were without merit. In Matter of X-M-C-, 25I. & N., the BIA held that the only action required to trigger a frivolousness inquiry was the filing of an asylum application and that the IJ and BIA were not prevented from finding that an application was frivolous simply because the applicant withdrew the application or recanted false statements. Even if 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6) were ambiguous, the court nonetheless owed Chevron deference to the BIA's published interpretation of the statute, which was reasonable and well-grounded in the policy behind the statute. Accordingly, the court held that section 2258(d)(6) permitted a frivolousness finding based on a withdrawn application and denied the petition for review. View "Kulakchyan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in Mexico, appealed the denial of her request for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court issued the opinion to clarify that DHS could seek to terminate a prior grant of withholding of removal in conjunction with removal proceedings as long as DHS met its burden of demonstrating the grounds for doing so. The court held that two separate proceedings were not required under 8 C.F.R. 1208.24(f). The court concluded that: (1) DHS could file a Notice of Appeal when an alien was subject to an extant withholding of removal; (2) there need not be a separate hearing on the termination of the withholding; (3) the government had the burden of demonstrating by the preponderance of the evidence the grounds for the termination of withholding; (4) the government met its burden by submitting official state records of petitioner's state convictions; and (5) petitioner had not shown a denial of procedural due process because her proceedings were not fundamentally unfair and further proceedings would not have changed the outcome. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gutierrez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of DHS's reinstatement of a previously-issued order of removal against petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he acquired citizenship from his U.S. citizen father at birth. The court concluded that petitioner met the requirements of INA 301 and 309 and acquired U.S. citizenship from his father at birth. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iracheta v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying a motion to reopen. Petitioner entered the United States to flee an abusive relationship and claimed that she feared persecution in China because she violated China's family planning policy by giving birth to two children in the United States and by being unmarried. The court granted the petition for review because the BIA abused its discretion when it held petitioner to an incorrect legal standard and failed to properly consider much of her relevant evidence. View "Zhao v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision dismissing her asylum claim for lack of timeliness. Petitioner filed petitions for review in this court following the denial of the motion to reconsider and the IJ's last background checks, but did not file a petition after the Board's initial decision denying her asylum application. The court held that petitioners must file their petitions for review within thirty days of the BIA's determination of their applicable claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In this instance, petitioner had a full and fair hearing of her claims and a reasonable opportunity to present evidence on her behalf; a final order of removal existed regarding the asylum claiming following the BIA's decision on November 25, 2008, triggering the thirty-day rule; and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of asylum because petitioner failed to timely petition for review. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petitions for review. View "Abdisalan v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2004, Lie, a Christian and ethnic-Chinese citizen of Indonesia was charged with removability as a noncitizen who overstayed his visa. He conceded removability, but applied for asylum and withholding of removal. In 2006, an Immigration Judge denied his applications. In 2008, the BIA remanded for further consideration of Lie's claim that he would face persecution as a Christian and ethnic Chinese Indonesian. In 2011, the IJ again denied the applications. In 2012, the BIA dismissed the appeal, finding that Lie had failed to show a pattern or practice of persecution. Lie did not seek judicial review, but filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied. The First Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Lie v. Holder" on Justia Law

Cano, a 40-year-old citizen of Colombia, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1981. Following a 1992 conviction for shoplifting and a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon in 1997, the government initiated removal proceedings in 2001. Cano denied that he was removable and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). Acknowledging Cano's extensive criminal history, including numerous additional charges, the Immigration Judge granted cancellation of removal in light of evidence of Cano’s substantial mental disability. The BIA reversed. Following remand, Cano filed a new application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The First Circuit declined to review the BIA reversal because the second application is currently pending review by the BIA. View "Cano-Saldarriaga v. Holder" on Justia Law