Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner was able to demonstrate this continuous presence except for two encounters with U.S. Border Patrol in 2007, each of which resulted in what the parties termed petitioner's "voluntary return" to Mexico. The court held that the immigration judge reasonably found that during each of those well-documented encounters, petitioner knowingly and voluntarily conceded his removability, waived his right to appear before an immigration judge, and chose to leave the United States in lieu of more formal proceedings. The court further held that petitioner's return to Mexico under those circumstances severed his continuous physical presence in the United States, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Finally, the court denied petitioner's appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. View "Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former member of the Mexican military, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition with respect to petitioner's past persecution claim and remanded to the BIA to determine whether certain post-military incidents were attributable to the Los Zetas drug cartel, where petitioner assisted in transferring the arrestees, and whether the Mexican government was able to control Los Zetas as relevant to those in petitioner's particular social group. The BIA did not sufficiently consider Mexico's ability to control Los Zetas, so the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings on petitioner's claim of future persecution. Because the court rejected the BIA's finding on the lack of a causal nexus and remanded on the issue of the government's ability to control Los Zetas, the court also granted the petition on the withholding of removal claim and remanded to the BIA to reconsider petitioner's application; and the court remanded for the BIA to consider whether any torture petitioner was likely to endure if returned to Mexico would be with the consent or acquiescence of a public official. View "Tapia Madrigal v. Holder" on Justia Law

German law requires all children to attend public or state-approved private schools. The Romeikes, parents of five young children, feared that the public school curriculum would influence their children against Christian values” and chose to home-school. The government imposed fines for each unexcused absence. Once, police went to the Romeikes’ house and escorted the children to school. The next time, four adults and seven children from the Romeikes’ home-schooling support group intervened, and the police, reluctant to use force, left the premises without the children. The family traveled to the U.S. to seek asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A), which applies to those who have a “well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Board of Immigration Appeals found that German authorities have not singled out the Romeikes in particular or home-schoolers in general for persecution and denied their petition. The district court and Seventh Circuit upheld the decision. The German law does not on its face single out any protected group, and the Romeikes did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the law’s application turns on prohibited classifications or animus based on any prohibited ground. View "Romeike v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's final order of removal, contending that the BIA erred when it ruled that his Maryland second-degree assault conviction was for a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16, and thus an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) that triggered his removability. The court concluded that the Attorney General failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner's assault conviction necessarily rested on facts identifying his second-degree assault offense as a type of assault that qualified as a crime of violence. Consequently, the Attorney General had not met his burden of proving petitioner's removability as an aggravated felon. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order of removal, and remanded to the BIA with instructions to reinstate petitioner's asylee status. View "Karimi v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen from Fujian Province, entered the U.S. in 1997 and is the mother of two boys born in the U.S. She sought asylum on the ground that she is likely to be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her application on the ground that she has no well-founded fear of sterilization. The immigration judge also found that she could relocate to a part of China in which the one-child policy is not enforced as enthusiastically as in Fujian. The Seventh Circuit vacated, first noting that the 2007 petition was timely because the birth of a second child resulted in changed circumstances, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D). The petitioner claims that after the birth of that child, Chinese authorities, who may have learned of the birth from her parents’ customary party to celebrate it, ordered her (via a letter to her father) to report for sterilization and subsequently revoked her village registration. The court noted that forced sterilization and forced abortion in Fujian have been documented and stated that the Board has not attempted “to construct an empirical basis … for its skeptical attitude toward these applicants.” View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, married Mexican citizens, petitioned for review of the denial of their applications for withholding of removal. After seeing petitioners' fathers associating with Evangelical Christians, Catholic villagers began threatening and attacking members of their families in the streets of the village. The court concluded that petitioners have not proven that the conditions in the village rose to the level of persecution, even when the conditions there were viewed together with the street attacks; petitioners could avoid any future persecution in Mexico by relocating to Oaxaca City; and petitioners' relocation to Oaxaca City to avoid possible persecution would be reasonable where petitioners' arguments regarding their lack of savings and the limited employment opportunities in Oaxaca City were unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Alavez-Hernandez, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, citizens of Pakistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that they could not adjust their status because for more than 180 days, they had not been in "lawful status." The BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that petitioners failed to maintain continuous lawful status since their entry into the United States and failed to qualify for any exception to the requirement. The court concluded that the BIA properly denied "lawful status" and reasonably determined that petitioners had failed to maintain theirs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dhuka, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b) and returning him to Mexico. The BIA concluded that the social group petitioner proposed, framed in the terms presented to the BIA - insulin-dependent persons with mental-health problems, including posttraumatic stress and depressive disorders - was not "particular" as the statute required. The BIA also concluded that the record did not show a clear probability of persecution because of membership in a particular social group. The court concluded that the BIA correctly found that petitioner failed to show that he was a member of a particular social group or that he would be persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that he was ineligible for the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997's (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2193, so-called "special rule cancellation of removal" under 8 C.F.R. 1240.66(b)(1). The court concluded that the BIA's interpretation of section 1240.66(b)(1) was inconsistent with the regulation, and as an unadmitted alien, petitioner could not be ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal on the basis of a conviction that would make an admitted alien "deportable" under section 237 of the INA. Because the court's holding was limited to the conclusion that conviction of a crime specified under section 237 could not render petitioner, as an unadmitted alien, ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal, the court remanded so that the BIA could decide in the first instance any other matters that could be appropriate in determining whether to grant special rule cancellation of removal to petitioner. View "Reyes v. Holder" on Justia Law

Avila applied for adjustment of status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen in 1999. The couple has two daughters. He has been employed laying countertops since approximately 1997. DHS concluded that Avila was ineligible for adjustment of status based on its determination that he attempted to enter in 1997, by representing himself as a U.S. citizen, and that he actually entered at a later date without presenting himself for inspection. DHS charged that Avila was removable as an alien present without inspection or admission, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(I); and (2) as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a U.S. citizen for an immigration benefit, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Avila denied making a false claim of citizenship, but conceded removability as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and sought relief under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A). An Immigration Judge found him removable on both grounds and denied adjustment of status and voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) affirmed. The Seventh Circuit vacated, holding that even assuming that Avila presented a baptismal certificate, there was no evidence indicating that he made any oral statements or even used the name of the person on the baptismal certificate. View "Avila v. Holder" on Justia Law