Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. When Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's order, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum, as Petitioner failed to demonstrate her status as a refugee; and (2) because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, her claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT also failed. View "Guaman-Loja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Boadi legally entered the U.S. in 2000 but overstayed and married Bonds, a U.S. citizen, in 2001. He adjusted his status to conditional lawful permanent resident in 2003, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(a)(1). In 2007, Boadi and Bonds sought removal of the “condition” to his permanent resident status, with documentation supporting the authenticity of their marriage. DHS’s interview with the couple revealed that Boadi lived in Ohio and Bonds in Illinois and that Boadi may have lived with his ex-wife, another Ghanian national. Bonds could neither name Boadi’s three children nor the street on which Boadi lived. They gave conflicting answers regarding their respective children’s relationships and who paid the bills. Boadi failed to respond to a letter and DHS terminated his legal status in 2009 and issued a notice to appear. Boadi and Bonds divorced only weeks after the notice to appear, which automatically terminates an alien’s conditional legal status, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(b)(1)(A)(ii), distinct from DHS’s existing allegation of fraud. Boadi unsuccessfully requested a good-faith marriage waiver. Removal proceedings began. The immigration judge made an adverse credibility determination and found Boadi removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(D)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Boadi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's conclusion that petitioner's application for cancellation of removal was abandoned after petitioner's counsel did not file the application on time. The BIA found that petitioner had not complied with one of the procedural requirements announced in Matter of Lozado. The court read the BIA's decision as denying petitioner's motion to reopen, over which the court had jurisdiction. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in applying Lozado where the record was undisputed that petitioner's counsel failed to file his application; petitioner lost his opportunity to apply for cancellation of removal; and therefore, petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed, and remanded for the BIA to reopen petitioner's case and allow him to file his application for cancellation of removal. View "Correa-Rivera v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum. Petitioner alleged that he had suffered past religious persecution on the basis of a 2002 incident, during which the police busted up a Christian church service in his father's home and arrested his father, who was the leader of the church, petitioner, and seven or eight other worshipers. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's account, if true, compelled a finding of past persecution. In this case, the Chinese authorities subjected petitioner, over the course of seven days, to a wide variety of harms in a concerted effort to repress his religious exercise. Those disturbing circumstances convinced the court that, if petitioner's account was to be credited, the Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner on account of his religion. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's determination that the conduct petitioner alleged did not amount to persecution. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shi v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with illegal reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of twelve months imprisonment. The government conceded that the district court's lack of notice that it intended to depart upward from the Sentencing Guidelines was a clear and obvious error in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h). Even assuming that the error affected defendant's substantial rights, defendant has not met his burden of showing that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant where the district court was permitted to consider the need for deterrence as a sentencing factor and defendant's previous immigration encounters and removals in departing upward from his sentencing range. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Zelaya-Rosales" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the USCIS's denial of her Form I-360 self-petition for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS denied the petition on the grounds that it was contrary to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. Petitioner claimed that USCIS's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because petitioner's husband did not satisfy the fifth requirement under the plain reading of section 1 of the CAA, the alien must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, petitioner could not self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994's, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1902, amendments to the CAA. Further, the USCIS's distinction between non-Cuban aliens on the basis of a Cuban spouse's adjustment status did not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy-to-commit larceny stemming from a scheme in which Petitioner stole from the dorm rooms of his college classmates. At the time, Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident. Consequently, an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (BIA) found that Petitioner was removable because his crimes involved "moral turpitude" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order dismissing Petitioner's appeal, holding that the BIA erred in finding Petitioner removable, as there was no statement in Petitioner's plea colloquy admitting an intent to commit a permanent deprivation. Remanded. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for adjustment of status and its denial of his motion to reopen based on new evidence. The BIA concluded that petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status because of a 1997 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11359. Petitioner contended that the conviction was actually for simple possession of marijuana in violation of Health & Safety Code section 11357, and that, as a result, he was eligible for relief. The court concluded that petitioner failed to establish that the state court changed his 1997 drug conviction from possession of marijuana for sale under section 11359 to simple possession of marijuana under section 11357. Because petitioner remained inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182 notwithstanding the state court's expungement of his section 11359 offense, he was ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, sought discretionary relief from his removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111, Stat. 2160, 2198. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for relief because he was unable to demonstrate that his 1996 Virginia conviction for assault and battery was not a crime of violence. The court concluded that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's, 8 U.S.C. 321(c), retroactive application of the revised definition of "aggravated felony" survived petitioner's constitutional challenges. The court also held that the government had demonstrated that petitioner's removability and petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for discretionary relief from removal, as afforded by NACARA. Accordingly, the court denied his petitions for review. View "Mondragon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied petitioner's applications based on an adverse credibility finding. The court concluded that the IJ considered all of the evidence presented and its decision was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative information from the record as a whole. The inconsistencies and discrepancies noted by the IJ in this case were not minor or peripheral. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Fofana v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law