Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief and ordered Petitioner removed to China. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. About eight years later, Petitioner filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her case, claiming that she had converted to Christianity and that because conditions related to treatment of Christians in China had significantly worsened, she fell within the "changed country conditions" exception to the rule that a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioner did not establish "changed conditions" in China for Christians practicing in unregistered churches. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Pouhova is a Bulgarian citizen who entered the U.S. on a student visa in 1999. She overstayed her visa, married a U.S. citizen and applied for an adjustment of status. She was charged as removeable for assisting an alien trying to enter the U.S. illegally, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(E)(i). The government produced a written statement from the woman who attempted to use Pouhova’s Bulgarian passport to enter the U.S. in 2000. The document was taken in English, without an interpreter. The government also produced a Department of Homeland Security “record of deportable alien,” a report on that interview, prepared by the same inspector, but more than seven years later. Pouhova was ordered removed and appealed, arguing that she was deprived of her procedural rights because the immigration judge based his decision on the two hearsay documents. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. Although the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to removal hearings, the documents are not reliable and should not have been used without giving Pouhova an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant or author. View "Pouhova v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, conceded the charges of removability for entering the United States by fraud and for remaining in the United States beyond the period of his authorized stay. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's applications for waivers of inadmissibility relating to fraud and unlawful presence and denied his application for permission to reapply for admission. The IJ then granted voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err in finding Petitioner was removable due to having gained admission to the United States by fraud; and (2) the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's arguments that the IJ did not properly analyze the facts in denying Petitioner's applications for waivers of inadmissibility and permission to reapply for admission. View "Urizar-Carrascoza v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was born in Nigeria and came to the United States when he was four years old, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of an appeal of an IJ's decision denying his motion to terminate his removal proceedings. At issue was whether petitioner's failure to become a lawful permanent resident before turning eighteen years old, when his parents became naturalized citizens when he was seventeen, barred him from claiming derivative citizenship from his parents. In considering petitioner's claim, the court must apply the law in effect when he fulfilled the last requirement for derivative citizenship. In this instance, the law in effect when petitioner applied for lawful permanent residence status after his parents were naturalized was former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The court concluded that petitioner satisfied the derivative citizenship conditions of section 321(a) and, therefore, granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nwozuzu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Ashurov, a Tajikistani citizen, entered the U.S. under a visitor’s visa in 2007 and later sought a student visa. The application required submission of Form I-20, the school’s petition to sponsor a student. Ashurov stated that he planned to study English as a Second Language at the CMG School. CMG certified the form and Ashurov signed it without an oath, as required. The application was granted. In 2009 and 2010, Ashurov presented identical forms. In 2010, federal authorities determined that CMG was not providing students the required 18 hours of weekly in-class instruction. The school was closed and its designated official indicted. A jury convicted Ashurov under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a), which punishes a person who “knowingly makes under oath, or ... under penalty of perjury ... knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any ... document required by the immigration laws ... or knowingly presents any such ... document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis.” The district court granted an acquittal, finding that the oath requirement applied to both the “knowingly makes” and “knowingly presents” clauses and, alternatively, applying the rule of lenity. The Third Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the statute is “grievously ambiguous.” View "United States v. Ashurov" on Justia Law

Belbachir, an Algerian citizen, 27 years old, entered the U.S. as a visitor in 2004. She overstayed and, in 2005, flew from Chicago to England, where immigration authorities returned her to Chicago. She was placed in the McHenry County Jail, which has a contract with the federal government to house detainees. She planned to seek asylum on the ground that she had a well‐founded fear of being persecuted if returned to Algeria. She committed suicide by strangling herself with her socks about eight days after arriving at the jail. Her estate sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, arguing that defendants had deprived Belbachir of her life without due process of law, and under Illinois tort law. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to the section 1983 claims. The plaintiff appealed only with respect to McHenry County; the county sheriff and the director of the jail; and three employees of Centegra, a private firm, hired to provide medical services at the jail. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to one Centegra employee, who was aware of Belbachir’s suicidal thoughts and depressed condition, but failed to take action. The court otherwise affirmed. View "Belbachir v. McHenry Cnty., IL" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in which he also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging he was eligible for relief because he had and would suffer persecution because of his anti-Taliban political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge denied Khan's application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err (1) in concluding that there was no government connection to support a finding of past or future persecution, and (2) in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Khan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his appeal from the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia deportation proceedings, rescind the in absentia order, stay deportation, and change venue. Petitioner argued that he never received the notice of deportation hearing; the notice of hearing (NOH) was statutorily deficient under 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3)(A) because it was written only in English and not also in Spanish; and due process required that a NOH be in a language the alien could understand. The court concluded that petitioner's unsupported denial of receipt of the certified mail notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption of effective service; the fact that the NOH was only printed in English did not prejudice petitioner; and the NOH comported with due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, using a fake Italian passport, came to the U.S. in 2002, at age 23. Less than a year later, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that she feared returning to Albania because, as a young woman living alone, she would be kidnapped and forced into prostitution and that police would not protect her because she is Christian and supports the Democratic party, which was not in power. She claimed that she was harassed by the leader of a Muslim gang and that police had taken no action. An IJ granted asylum, concluding that she belonged to a particular social group comprised of young women targeted by traffickers and that the Albanian government was unwilling or unable to protect such women. The decision was vacated by the BIA. The Seventh Circuit denied review, but on rehearing, en banc, vacated and ruled in favor of petitioner. The BIA erred in determining that her social group was not cognizable under the Act and that internal relocation was a feasible means of avoiding persecution. View "Cece v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed suit claiming that the USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., and the Due Process Clause, by denying the husband's I-130 petition without affording them the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff's ex-husband regarding his statement that their marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that there was no statutory right of cross-examination in I-130 visa adjudications. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' due process rights were violated where the immediate relative status for an alien spouse was a right to which citizen applicants were entitled and that protected interest was entitled to the protections of due process; plaintiffs' showed sufficient prejudice; and additional process was due in this case pursuant to Mathews v. Eldridge. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the due process claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ching v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law