Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Abdoulaye, a citizen of Niger, entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa in 2002 and, several months later, sought asylum, withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1231 and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared being sentenced to death or killed due to his planning of a military mutiny that was executed in 2002. Abdoulaye had been a corporal in the Nigerien military and a supporter of a left-wing political party loyal to the former president. . The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected the application, based on a finding that Abdoulaye’s participation in the mutiny amounted to “terrorist activity” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, rendering him ineligible for any form of relief. The Board also found that Abdoulaye failed to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Niger. The Seventh Circuit denied relief, finding that the Board’s decisions were supported by substantial evidence. View "Abdoulaye v. Holder" on Justia Law

Yasinskyy, a Ukrainian citizen came to the U.S. in 2007 with an H-2B nonimmigrant visa, sponsored by a New York company for work as a temporary employee at a grocery store, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(h). After working for six weeks, he traveled to Oregon for better-paying employment and began the process for obtaining a commercial driver’s license. At his last exam, he was detained for being unlawfully present in the U.S. In removal proceedings, Yasnskyy applied for asylum claiming past persecution based on political opinion. He claimed to have been hospitalized, twice, with a concussion and bruised kidney after political demonstrations, to have been terminated from his job, and to have been repeatedly threatened. There was no prosecution, due to lack of evidence. An immigration judge denied his claims, stating that Yasinskyy did not show that the Ukrainian government was unwilling or unable to protect him from harm,. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence. View "Yasinskky v. Holder" on Justia Law

Stokes was a public school teacher for more than 10 years. In 2000, he pleaded no contest to a charge of misdemeanor battery for indecently touching two boys who were his students. Stokes was sentenced to probation, with a prohibition on unsupervised contact with minors. Less than a month after sentencing, Stokes obtained permission to complete his probation in Thailand. Within weeks of his arrival in Thailand, he began seeking boys for sex. This continued for several years until someone tipped off the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, which, with the Royal Thai Police, searched Stokes’s home and recovered a camera, a computer, and compact discs containing thousands of images of Stokes’s sexual activity with Thai boys. Stokes was extradited and convicted of traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a sex act with a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims related to a procedural mistake in the extradition process and to the legality of the search. The Thai foreign ministry waived the “Rule of Specialty,” allowing the government to proceed on a substitute charge. The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and the Warrant Clause have no extraterritorial application, but Stokes was protected by the Amendment’s touchstone requirement of reasonableness. The search was reasonable. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the BIA's order denying his motion to terminate deportation proceedings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that petitioner's conviction of witness tampering in violation of Nebraska Statute 28-919(1)(c), (d), constituted an aggravated felony because it was an offense relating to the obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S). View "Armenta-Lagunas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Zivkovic, a Serbian, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1966. In 1976, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a sentence of two to six years. In 1978, he was convicted of attempted rape and was sentenced to four to 12 years. In 2010, he was convicted of criminal trespass to a residence with a person present and of aggravated battery, where the aggravating factor was the victim’s age. In 2004 Zivkovic was charged as removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G); for attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A) (murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor); and under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), as an alien convicted of two crimes. The BIA ordered removal because he had committed three aggravated felonies and was not eligible for special relief under 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The Seventh Circuit granted Zivkovic’s petition, reasoning that two of his convictions are more than 35 years old and that the law has not remained static. The statutes are ambiguous and presumptions against retroactivity and implied repeal require remand. The court noted that even one of the convictions would guarantee near-automatic removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). View "Zivkovic v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's grant of their motion to suppress evidence obtained in egregious violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and termination of removal proceedings. Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the BIA found that it need not determine whether petitioners suffered an egregious violation because birth certificates and arrest records were obtained after the Government had determined their identities. The court joined the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that Lopez-Mendoza reaffirmed a long-standing rule of personal jurisdiction; it did not create an evidentiary rule insulating specific pieces of identity-related evidence from suppression. Therefore, the BIA erred in concluding that the Government had met its burden of establishing that certain alienage-related evidence had been obtained independent of any constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the BIA to reach the issue of whether Government agents seized evidence of alienage from petitioners in the course of committing an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. View "Pretzantzin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. After the Government instituted removal proceedings, petitioner filed a motion to suppress the Government's evidence, arguing that ICE officers obtained the evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they forcibly gained entrance to his home and arrested him without a warrant or probable cause. The court concluded that the IJ erred in finding that petitioner's submissions were insufficient to shift the burden to the Government to establish consent and erred in concluding that the facts alleged, even accepted as true, were insufficient to yield an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Cotzojay v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, petitioned for review of the BIA's orders finding her ineligible for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reopen. The court concluded that petitioner "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status" under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2) where maintenance of lawful status after the admission was not required and where petitioner's brief trip to Mexico on advance parole did not end her period of continuous residence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review in regard to this issue. The court concluded, however, that the BIA properly denied petitioner's motion to reopen because she could not retract her concessions of removeability. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review in regard to this issue. View "Galindo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Ramos, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. without inspection or authorization in 2009, at the age of 14. In removal proceedings, he sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that, in El Salvador, members of a gang had begun attempting to recruit him when he was 11 years old and had threatened to beat him if he refused to join. Neither Ramos nor acquaintances, having refused to join, were physically harmed by gang members. A member of the gang was arrested for the murder of a neighbor child who had stolen gang property. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that Ramos had not established membership in a particular social group protected under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Sixth Circuit denied review, noting that the social visibility of a particular social group refers to whether those with the relevant shared characteristic are perceived as a group by society, rather than whether the group’s individual members are visually recognizable “on-sight.” View "Umana-Ramos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Cafe and its owner and manager for willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that plaintiffs, as aliens without work authorization, lacked standing to sue. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the FLSA did not allow employers to exploit any employee's immigration status or to profit from hiring unauthorized aliens in violation of federal law. View "Lucas, et al. v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, et al" on Justia Law