Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Sunarto Ang and his wife Tuti Erlina, citizens of Indonesia, overstayed their visas and applied to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for asylum. The DHS subsequently charged And and Erlina with removability. Ang and Erlina renewed their application for asylum and applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The immigration judge (IJ) rejected the application for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Ang and Erlina's appeal, finding that Ang and Erlina did not suffer past persecution or have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ang and Erlina's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the IJ and the BIA that Ang and Erlina were not entitled to asylum. View "Ang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the Department of Labor's new regulations providing that a labor certification expired after 180 days unless a visa application was filed or, in this case, 180 days after the regulation became final. Plaintiff alleged that enforcing the 180-day rule without providing actual notice constituted an impermissible retroactive rule. The court agreed with the district court that publication of the proposed and final rules in the Federal Register afforded adequate notice of the revision, and that the regulation was not impermissibly retroactive. Further, the text of the statute did not foreclose the establishment of an expiration date for labor certifications. Because the regulation did not have retroactive effect, plaintiff's labor certifications expired when it did not take timely action after the effective date of the new regulation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the government. View "Elim Church of God v. Harris" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a citizen and native of Jamaica who entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident. A decade later, Petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree larceny in the state of Connecticut. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony, specifically, a theft offense. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed, concluding, among other things, that Connecticut second-degree larceny qualifies as a theft offense. 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 in concluding that larceny in the second degree under Connecticut law qualifies as a theft offense aggravated felony. View "Lecky v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. In 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, claiming he risked persecution if he returned to China because of his political activity. Petitioner claimed that the ninety-day deadline to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings was inapplicable because his motion was based on changed country conditions in China. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely, determining that he had not demonstrated changed country conditions that would exempt his motion from the deadline. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy any of the exceptions to the time limit for a motion to reopen. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Akram, her mother, and her younger sister were citizens of Pakistan. Akram’s mother married Siddique, a U.S. citizen, in 2005 when Akram was 18 years old. The marriage occurred outside the U.S.; Siddique requested K visas so that the women could wait for permanent visas in the U.S. and filed I-130 petitions to make them eligible for immigrant visas as “immediate relatives” of a citizen. 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Akram’s mother and sister received K-3 visas and their I-130 Petitions were granted. Akram’s request for a K visa was granted, but her I-130 petition was denied because of inconsistent definitions, such that she was too old to be Siddique’s “child,” even though she was still her mother’s “minor child.” Akram’s mother became a lawful permanent resident and filed her own I-130 alien relative petition on Akram’s behalf in 2008, which is pending. Akram remained in the U.S. after her K-4 visa expired, and removal proceedings began in 2009. An Immigration Judge held that 8 C.F.R. 245.1(i) bars Akram from adjusting status by any means other than through Siddique. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act as "Byzantine” and concluding that the regulation at issue conflicts with congressional intent. View "Akram v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Tunisia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order finding him removable because his July 2010 conviction for violating a Kansas drug paraphernalia statute was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA correctly concluded that a conviction for violating the Kansas paraphernalia statute was, categorically, related to a controlled substance within the meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and use of the modified categorical approach as urged by petitioner was unnecessary; the court rejected petitioner's premise that Matter of Paulus was controlling agency authority the BIA arbitrarily ignored; and it was not error to admit and rely on evidence outside the record of conviction where the BIA concluded that the personal use exception did not apply. View "Mellouli v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160. The BIA determined that petitioner did not meet NACARA's definition of a child at the time that his father was granted relief, and that the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927, did not apply to him. The court concluded that petitioner had not demonstrated that the CSPA applied to NACARA, or that failure of Congress to apply the CSPA to NACARA violated the equal protection component of due process. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review where petitioner was relegated to and bound by the multitude of other immigration provisions that Congress has adopted. View "Tista v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the USCIS and the agency's New York District Director. The district court determined that the statements plaintiff submitted to show that he was entitled to derivative United States citizenship were inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff's brother was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan terrorists, and if plaintiff were able to prove derivative citizenship, he could ostensibly be entitled to compensation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements under the family history exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to derivative citizenship because he submitted no sufficient admissible evidence establishing his mother's age at relocation. View "Porter v. Quarantillo" on Justia Law

Moreno, born in Mexico in 1971, was adopted by a U.S. citizen at age nine. New Mexico issued a birth certificate, indicating a birth place of Mexico. In the 1990s, Moreno was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and of false imprisonment. In 2006, she was deported, after an immigration judge, the Board of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit found that she was not a U.S. citizen. She returned to the U.S. in 2007 and obtained a passport, listing her place of birth as New Mexico. In 2008, the passport was confiscated by Border Patrol, but it was never revoked. She was released pending investigation. In 2011, DHS informed her that she was not a citizen. When she arrived in St. Thomas after a cruise, she told immigration officers that she was a U.S. citizen and presented her New Mexico driver’s license and a copy of her U.S. passport. Moreno was charged with falsely representing herself to be a citizen, 18 U.S.C. 911. On the night before trial, the government disclosed a DHS report concluding that the passport was valid but recommending investigation into her citizenship. Moreno did not accept a continuance. The district court did not admit the documents into evidence, finding that the non-exculpatory information had been previously disclosed. The court also declined to admit an FBI report, listing her citizenship as “United States,” and rejected an argument that the passport was conclusive evidence of citizenship. Moreno was sentenced to 29 months. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that under 22 U.S.C. 2705, a passport constitutes conclusive proof of citizenship only if issued to a U.S. citizen. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Peter Munis appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his request for discretionary removal. Petitioner overstayed his student visa and got a job without authorization which led to initiation of removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded the charge of removability, but sought discretionary relief, arguing that his marriage to an American citizen was grounds to adjust his status, and without relief, would pose an extreme hardship to his wife. The government raised petitioner's criminal history as grounds for removal. The IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Finding that the BIA's discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status absent a legal or constitutional question was unreviewable, the Tenth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Munis v. Holder" on Justia Law