Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA ordering his removal from the United States because he violated the terms of his student visa. The court denied the petition, rejecting petitioner's contention that he was eligible for cancellation of removal because he could meet the required ten years of continuous presence in the United States. Petitioner claimed that he qualified for the special continuous presence exception available to honorably discharged aliens who have served in active duty status in the United States military, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(3), because he was out of the country completing military service in South Korea. View "Lim v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was granted conditional permanent residency in the U.S. on the basis of her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Petitioner and her husband then began divorce proceedings. Petitioner subsequently sought to remove the conditions on her residency. The Department of Homeland Security (Department) denied Petitioner's petition, terminated her conditional resident status, and initiated removal proceedings against her, concluding that Petitioner did not establish that she married her husband in good faith. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's request for removal of conditions and determined Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she could not establish the requisite good moral character. Consequently, the IJ ordered Petitioner's removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Petitioner did not establish she married her husband in good faith; and (2) the Board did not err in concluding that Petitioner was subject to a mandatory bar to a finding of good moral character on the basis of false testimony in her immigration proceedings. View "Reynoso v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's pretermission of her adjustment of status application. The BIA pretermitted petitioner's application on the ground that she did not satisfy the definition of "child" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E) because she was not adopted before her 16th birthday. The court held that the BIA's blanket rule against recognizing state courts' nunc pro tunc adoption decrees constituted an impermissible construction of section 1101(b)(1)(E) under Chevron because it gave little or no weight to the federal policy of keeping families together, failed to afford deference to valid state court judgments in an area of the law that was primarily a matter of state concern, and addressed the possibility of immigration fraud through a sweeping, blanket rule rather than considering the validity of nunc pro tunc adoption decrees on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that the BIA's determination that petitioner engaged in marriage fraud violated her rights to due process of law. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Amponsah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of a class of individuals from China who were seeking to acquire permanent resident status in the employment-based third preference category (EB-3). Plaintiffs alleged that during the 2008-2009 fiscal years, defendants did not allocate immigrant visas to eligible applicants in the correct order, thereby delaying their applications, and their eligibility for adjustment of status. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because there was no live case or controversy about the establishment of visa cut-off dates, and the allocation of visa numbers, in the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief because they did not allege that defendants failed to take discrete actions they were legally required to take. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Li, et al. v. Kerry, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants, both Chinese nationals, shipped tens of millions of dollars worth of sophisticated electronic components from the United States to China with little regard for whether the parts they sold were export-controlled. In 2008, Defendants were arrested and later indicted for thirty-four counts of export-related offenses. The two were ultimately convicted of, among other things, exporting without a license items designated as defense articles on the U.S. Munitions List and items controlled under the Commerce Control List, conspiracy to violate the Munitions List and Commerce Control List restrictions, and conspiracy to file materially false Shipper's Export Declarations (SED) with the Commerce Department. On appeal, Defendants argued that the federal government's arms export control system constituted a regulatory scheme that violated the Due Process Clause. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed the Commerce Control List convictions and SED convictions, holding that the federal government's arms export control system does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause; and (2) vacated the Munitions List convictions, holding that the district court erred by not submitting to the jury an element of the offense, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "United States v. Wu" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Armenian native, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, injunctive and declaratory relief, and mandamus (District Court Petition) seeking to enjoin her imminent removal, reverse the USCIS's denial of her first adjustment-of-status application, and order USCIS to approve her then-pending second and third adjustment-of-status applications. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, sought to convert her appeal into a petition challenging the USCIS's denial of her adjustment-of-status applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). The court affirmed and declined to convert petitioner's appeal into a petition to the court. The court held that district courts had jurisdiction to hear cases challenging determinations made on nondiscretionary grounds respecting eligibility for the immigration benefits enumerated in section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), provided there were no pending removal proceedings in which an alien could apply for such benefits. The district court did not have jurisdiction over the petition because there had been no final agency action by USCIS on her pending adjustment-of-status applications at the time she filed her petition. However, because USCIS has since denied all of petitioner's applications, barring the discovery of new facts, the district court would now have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, to hear petitioner's claim that her application was improperly denied. View "Mamigonian v. Biggs, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his mandamus petition, where he sought to compel the DOE to issue him a Stafford Loan. While plaintiff's immigration status was still pending, he obtained valid employment authorization, graduated from college, and was accepted to law school. Plaintiff then filed a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and requested a Stafford Loan to pay his tuition. The law school declined to find him eligible for any form of federal student aid and plaintiff was unable to obtain a Stafford Loan. The court held that, in these circumstances, the jurisdictional question merged with the merits question. Plaintiff's mandamus petition fell within the scope of the sue-and-be-sued clause of 20 U.S.C. 1082(a)(2). Notwithstanding that clause, however, section 1082(a)(2)'s ani-injunction clause barred the suit for declaratory relief. The Larson-Dugan exception to sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiff's petition under 28 U.S.C. 1361. When plaintiff's Stafford Loan eligibility was reviewed, he did not provide any evidence from the INS or USCIS that he was in the United States for other than a temporary purpose. Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's petition on the merits. View "Mashiri v. Dept. of Education, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained for eight months by immigration officials and filed a complaint for money damages against a federal official afterwards. The parties initially agreed that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and the district court determined that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), barred complaints only by aliens. The district court later dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff's appeal of that decision was pending, the United States issued an official notice of cancellation of plaintiff's citizenship on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud and illegally, and the parties then disagreed about whether plaintiff was a citizen. The court vacated the order that dismissed the complaint and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and, if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. View "Belleri v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

The BIA found that petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found petitioner removable and denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because his underlying offense - pointing a firearm at another person, in violation of S.C. Code 16-23-410 - was a particularly serious crime of violence that disqualified him from those forms of relief. The BIA also denied his claim for CAT relief based on factual determinations that he would not be tortured upon return to his native Jamaica. After thorough review of petitioner's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that none of petitioner's claims justified the grant of his petition. View "Cole v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that she was persecuted by family-planning officials in China for being pregnant out of wedlock. The BIA and IJ concluded that petitioner lacked credibility because the substance of her story did not conform to State Department accounts of life in China. In the absence of any findings as to petitioner's demeanor, the consistency of her statements, or some other individualized reason for questioning her credibility, the court could not say that the IJ's adverse-credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons. Accordingly, although the court dismissed that portion of petitioner's claim relating to CAT relief for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court granted the petition as it related to the BIA's adverse-credibility determination, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law