Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Nepalese citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he was subjected to past persecution and feared future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, the Nepal Student Union. The court remanded the case because the IJ's finding, as affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner failed to prove the necessary nexus that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion, was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Sharma v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of unlawfully transferring a firearm around the same time that the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. An immigration judge found that Petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(C) and pretermitted Petitioner's previously filed application for cancellation of removal. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that Defendnat's delivery of a firearm to a purchaser constituted "trafficking in firearms" under the statute. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA's definition of "trafficking in firearms" as encompassing any commercial exchange was reasonable and consistent with the statute. View "Soto-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ghanaian national who entered the United States without inspection, conceded removability after immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner sought adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) and also applied for non-lawful permanent resident (LPR) cancellation of removal, alleging that his U.S. citizen child would suffer if he were moved. The agency found Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal and also denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider and reopen. The agency based its decision on the finding that Petitioner had misrepresented to immigration officials the circumstances of his marriage. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency did not err in concluding that Petitioner was inadmissible, and thus ineligible, for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal; and (2) Petitioner's additional evidence about the hardship of his family members would not have remedied the agency's finding of ineligibility for both cancellation and adjustment due to Petitioner's material misrepresentations. View "Agyei v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former prison guard in India, challenged the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's conclusion that petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal because he had assisted in the persecution of others on account of political opinion. The court granted the petition for review, concluding that the decisions of the IJ and BIA reflected a misunderstanding and misapplication of relevant precedent. The court remanded under INS v. Ventura to consider whether petitioner purposefully assisted in the alleged persecution. In doing so, the BIA should consider in particular whether the work of a sentry on the perimeter of an intelligence facility was integral not only to the functioning of the facility but also to the persecution that occurred inside of it, and the differences between the role of a Nazi guard at a Nazi concentration camp and petitioner, an individual working for a legitimate arm of a recognized government at a legitimate prison facility. View "Kumar v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1996, Congress passed a statute known as the "stop-time rule," which provides that a noncitizen's years of physical presence are cut off when he is served with notice of the commencement of removal proceedings. Petitioner, a national of Columbia, entered the United States without inspection in 1986. In 1987, Petitioner was placed into deportation proceedings. In 2007, Petitioner applied for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner applied for suspension of deportation, which required him to show he had accrued seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States since his arrival. Because Petitioner arrived in the United States in 1986, and his proceedings began in 1987, the immigration judge concluded that, under the stop-time rule, Petitioner had not accrued the necessary years of physical presence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied in part and dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the stop-time rule applied retroactively to Petitioner; and (2) Petitioner's remaining argument was not exhausted before the agency. View "Aguirre v. Holder" on Justia Law

Salim, an Indonesian citizen of Chinese ethnicity and Christian faith, claims that while living in Indonesia as a teenager, he endured ongoing harassment from Muslim students at nearby public schools because of his Chinese ethnicity. He was robbed for his lunch money several times, and once a student with a knife threatened him and punctured his neck. Salim claims it was difficult for Chinese individuals and Christians to travel safely around Jakarta during intense rioting in 1998. Several Chinese businesses were burned during that time, though his family’s business was not harmed. Salim left Indonesia in 2000 and filed a timely application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An IJ denied requested relief on grounds that Salim failed to show past or future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed appeal of denial of a motion to reopen because Salim offered no new, previously unavailable evidence and relied on case law from outside the circuit. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding that Salim’s motion to reopen did not point to any evidence that was previously undiscoverable. View "Salim v. Holder" on Justia Law

Rojas, a 22-year old citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. in 2003 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2009, Rojas pled guilty to possessing drug paraphernalia and was assessed a fine and court costs by the Pennsylvania state court. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings for having violated a law “relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21),” 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Rojas argued that the offense that constitutes the basis of removal must involve a substance defined in section 802 of Title 21. The BIA ordered Rojas removed. The Third Circuit, en banc, remanded. In a removal proceeding under section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), the government must show that the conviction for which it seeks to remove a foreign national involved or was related to a federally controlled substance. In this case, the Department failed to meet its burden. View "Rojas v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Belarus, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming an IJ's determination that she was not entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner has been deaf since infancy and claimed that her condition subjected her to persecution in Belarus. Petitioner also claimed that she suffered persecution on account of her and her family's religion (Seventh Day Adventists). The court concluded that petitioner has made a showing of past persecution on the basis of religion and that the government failed to rebut this presumption. Accordingly, petitioner was eligible for asylum on this claim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rusak v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was convicted of brandishing a firearm in the presence of the occupant of a motor vehicle, in violation of California Penal Code section 417.3. An IJ subsequently determined that petitioner's conviction was for a "crime of violence" and thereby an "aggravated felony," making petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal and for asylum. The IJ denied withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief on the merits. After petitioner appealed, the BIA affirmed the IJ's conclusion but issued its own reasoned decision. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision. The court dismissed the petition for review, concluding that California Penal Code section 417.3 qualified categorically as a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and, therefore, petitioner was an aggravated felon who was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). View "Bolanos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes that an individual "who entered the United States as a crewman" after 1964 is ineligible for cancellation of removal. Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 1998 on a C-1/D visa. Petitioner remained in the United States and eventually married a United States citizen. Petitioner subsequently applied for an adjustment of status, which was denied. Petitioner was then placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) found Petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had last entered the United States as a crewman. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that, even though Petitioner's visa was annotated "C-1" and he had not been employed as a crewman since his arrival, he had entered the United States as a crewman. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the record supported the BIA's finding that Petitioner entered the United States intending to work as a crewman and pursuing employment as such. View "Guerrero v. Holder" on Justia Law