Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of Senegal, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner mistakenly filed an N-400 citizenship application instead of filing an I-589 asylum application. After the N-400 application was denied, he filed the I-589 application. The IJ found that petitioner was not credible because he did not supply the same level of detail about persecution when he filled out his mistakenly filed N-400 citizenship application. The court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's adverse credibility finding and that the BIA erred when it adopted the IJ's flawed reasoning and when it found that petitioner was not credible on the ground that petitioner's citizenship and asylum applications were inconsistent. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bassene v. Holder" on Justia Law

FH-T joined the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in 1982 at age 15, while Eritrea and Ethiopia were engaged in a 30-year war. The EPLF refused to let him leave. For nine years he worked in communications and as a driver. He did not transport weapons. In 1994, the EPLF dissolved and became Eritrea’s only political party. FH-T was employed at a government-owned company, and, in 2005-2006, repeatedly expressed concerns about abuses of the compulsory National Service program. FH-T was imprisoned in a military prison camp for five months. After release, he remained under surveillance, was regularly interrogated, and received threats on his life. He fled Eritrea and sought asylum in the U.S. His father and sister were arrested when he left. An Immigration Judge denied FH-T’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1158. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on the basis that he had provided material support to the EPLF, classified as a “Tier III” terrorist organization, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). The Seventh Circuit denied review, rejecting challenges to the system and an argument that he was eligible for an exemption because he did not know that the EPLF was involved in the unlawful use of force; he did not exhaust this argument before the Board. View "F. H.-T. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his claim for asylum based on the untimeliness of his application. The court concluded that the BIA did not commit legal error because it did not require petitioner to show both "changed circumstances" and "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse his untimeliness. Instead, the BIA independently analyzed both exceptions and agreed with the IJ that petitioner met neither of them. Further, the issue of whether a "material" change in circumstances affected petitioner's eligibility for asylum was not a reviewable question of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the application for asylum was untimely. View "Goromou v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, alleged that the Arizona crime of conviction, "attempt to commit smuggling" in violation of A.R.S. 13-2319, did not categorically fit the federal definition of an alien smuggling offense and thus ought not to have triggered a sixteen-level sentencing guidelines enhancement. On the merits, the parties agreed that defendant was improperly sentenced. However, the issue on appeal was the proper appellate remedy for defendant who was entitled to a resentencing but, having been deported, was unable to be present for a resentencing hearing. The court affirmed the sentence without prejudice, pursuant to United States v. Plancarte-Alvarez, to a later request by defendant, if and when he should return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at resentencing, that his previous sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced in light of this opinion. View "United States v. Aguilar-Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. After the United State initiated removal proceedings against him, Petitioner applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging that he feared torture by guerrilla forces in Guatemala due to his father's military service and work in the civil patrol. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a threshold case for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Nine years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion, finding that he failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions and failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA (1) properly concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a material change in country conditions necessary to reopen removal proceedings; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. View "Jutus v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner arrived in the United States more than twenty years ago seeking political asylum based on alleged persecution he suffered at the hands of a guerrilla organization that had the aim of overthrowing the government of Peru. In 2012, after three court of appeals opinions, one district court opinion, and numerous administrative determinations, an immigration judge finally granted asylum to Petitioner and his family members. After the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered final judgment closing the case, Petitioner filed a petition for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, seeking attorneys' fees incurred while litigating his case in federal court and attorney's fees related to the administrative proceedings. The First Circuit granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that Petitioner was eligible to recover the fees incurred in Castaneda IV, the administrative proceedings that followed, Castanea V, and the current fee litigation. View "Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on a conditional basis based on her marriage to a United States citizen. After she divorced, Petitioner's status as a conditional permanent resident was terminated. Petitioner filed two applications for relief six months past the deadline. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the applications, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had abandoned her applications by failing to file them by the deadline. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on the grounds of abandonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the IJ acted within her discretion in finding that Petitioner had abandoned her applications for relief by missing the filing deadline; and (2) because the BIA's and IJ's findings as to abandonment was not an abuse of discretion, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to address Petitioner's other arguments on appeal. View "Moreta v. Holder" on Justia Law

Gao, from Fujian in southeastern China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2005 with the goal of earning money to send home to his family in China. Shortly after he arrived Gao’s wife (in China) gave birth to the couple’s second child, a daughter,and was sterilized. Gao sought asylum on the ground that his wife’s sterilization amounted to persecution of him.An IJ denied his petition and ordered him removed to China. The Board dismissed his appeal, reiterating its rule that spouses of persons subjected to forced sterilization no longer qualify automatically for asylum. One day after the applicable 90-day deadline, Gao moved to amend his asylum application to add a claim that he feared that he would be subjected to religious persecution if he was returned because he had connverted to Christianity. The Board denied this motion, concluding that Gao had not established changed country conditions necessary to excuse untimely filing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Gao v. Holder" on Justia Law

Almutairi served in the Kuwaiti Air Force in1990, when Iraq invaded. Almutairi joined a resistance group. Iraqi soldiers captured him and for nine days he was brutally tortured. Almutairi cracked under the pressure and brought the Iraqi soldiers to a house that he thought would be unoccupied. When the soldiers entered the house, they found and arrested a man. They released Almutairi, Days later the soldiers publicly executed the man from the house, along with three others. Almutairi fled the country, but he and his family returned, after the country’s liberation. Almutairi received threatening phone. Two years after the threats, after spending time in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, Almutairi came to the U.S. in 1994 on a nonimmigrant student visa. He ended his studies 10 years later. In 2006 he was served with a Notice to Appear for violating his visa. The following year, after his family had received another threatening phone call in Kuwait, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that the asylum application was untimely and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to deny withholding of relief. View "Almutairi v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1998, Zheng, under the legal age for marriage in China, became pregnant by her boyfriend, who also was under age. The government family planning officials took Zheng to a hospital, where she underwent an abortion. Zheng left China shortly thereafter, entered the U.S. illegally in 1999, married, and had two children. Zheng sought asylum in 2006, claiming she had undergone a forced abortion and feared that, if returned to China, she would be sterilized for having had two children. In 2008 an immigration judge denied Zheng’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that she had missed the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), and did not qualify for any exception, and, in the alternative that even if the birth of Zheng’s second child was a circumstance that allowed for an exception to the deadline, asylum would have been denied because the birth of two children in the U.S. does not give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and ordered her removed. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law