Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner had pled guilty to false imprisonment in violation of California Penal Code 210.5 and the IJ held that petitioner's conviction qualified as a crime of violence. The court concluded that California Penal Code 210.5 was categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b) and was therefore an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court otherwise lacked jurisdiction to review petitioner's final order of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Barragan-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a permanent resident alien and federal inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) for a judgment declaring him a United States national. Petitioner has resided in the United States since the age of eleven and has been a permanent resident for almost twenty-five years. Petitioner alleged that he was a United States national because he applied for citizenship, registered for the Selective Service, and declared his permanent allegiance to various United States officials. The court held that these facts failed to allege United States nationality under section 1503(a) and affirmed the dismissal of his action. Petitioner could not state a claim to be a United States national under United States v. Morin because the court must defer to the BIA's contrary, post-Morin interpretation of section 1101(a)(22). View "Patel v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without inspection in 1992. In 1995, an immigration judge (IJ) adjudged Petitioner deportable and gave her until 1996 to voluntarily depart. Petitioner remained in the country. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, basing her motion on charged circumstances and citing her marriage to a United States citizen and approval of her visa petition. The IJ denied her motion as untimely. The board of appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner missed the deadline to file a motion to reopen, and none of the regulatory exceptions to the deadline applied in this case. View "Paca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because his conviction for resisting arrest constituted a particularly serious crime. The court held that it had jurisdiction over petitioner's challenges, which were premised on constitutional and legal considerations, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C). Because the BIA had not adequately explained its reasons for designating petitioner's conviction a particularly serious crime, the court granted the petition with respect to the particularly serious crime determination and remanded to the BIA for an appropriate explanation. As to petitioner's CAT claim for deferral of removal, the court denied the petition. View " Alphonsus v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ concluded that petitioner's conviction for attempted sexual assault under Texas Penal Code section 22.011 was a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) because the offense presented a substantial risk of the use of physical force against another. When petitioner appealed the IJ's order of removal, the BIA dismissed the appeal. Because the record did not establish that petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), the court granted his petition and vacated the order of removal. View "Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Chen illegally entered the U.S. in 2006. Shortly thereafter, his wife gave birth to the couple’s second child in China. Chinese authorities then forcibly sterilized her. Chen filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, arguing that he suffered persecution when he learned that his wife had been forcibly sterilized. While his removal proceedings were pending, Chen began practicing Falun Gong, a spiritual practice, then supplemented his requests for relief from removal arguing that he feared future persecution because of his Falun Gong activities. Concluding that Chen had not suffered past persecution and lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution, an Immigration Judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. There was substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Chen had not shown that his Falun Gong practices were likely to attract the attention of the authorities.View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a Pakistani native and his family, sought refuge in the United States in 2009 after the Taliban began attacking Awami National Party (ANP) activists. Petitioner was an active member of the ANP. Later in 2009, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications and ordered them removed to Pakistan. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BOA) affirmed the IJ's order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioners' petition for review and vacated the order of the BIA, holding that neither the IJ nor the BIA presented a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole in this case. Remanded. View "Khattak v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Chaudhry family, citizens of Pakistan, lawfully entered the U.S. in 2003, under a business visitor visa. Before the expiration of that status, Chaudhry and his employer Amtal obtained a status change to skilled worker, extending Chaudhry’s lawful nonimmigrant status through January 21, 2005. Amtal filed a Form I-140 petition that sought to designate Chaudhry a multi-national executive or manager; Chaudhry simultaneously submitted Form I-485 for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident. CIS rejected both applications because Chaudhry no longer worked for Amtal. Supported by his new employer, Sarus, Chaudhry submitted new documents. CIS approved Sarus’s I-140 employment-based visa petition in 2007, but in 2008, rejected Chaudhry’s I-485 adjustment-of-status application because more than 180 days had elapsed between the expiration of lawful nonimmigrant status and the filing of the final adjustment application. The IJ rejected Chaudry’s argument that he remained in lawful status through the date CIS rejected his first and second adjustment applications. The Board acknowledged that “unlawful presence” and “unlawful status” are distinct concepts, but held that the pendency of prior adjustment applications had no bearing on Chaudhry’s nonimmigrant status after it expired. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. View "Chaudhry v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to third degree rape under Oregon law in December 1999. In 2002, he pleaded guilty for failing to register as a sex offender and voluntarily left the country some time later. After being indicted in 2010 for illegally reentering the country after having been previously removed, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his 2004 order of removal was invalid because the IJ incorrectly determined that his Oregon statutory rape conviction was an aggravated felony and, as a result, erroneously informed him that he was not eligible for voluntary departure. The court concluded that defendant's underlying removal proceeding was consistent with due process because he was correctly informed that he was ineligible for discretionary relief from removal under the applicable law at the time of his removal hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of the indictment against defendant and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Vidal-Mendoza" on Justia Law

Petitioners are citizens of Mali who remained in the U.S. longer than authorized under their visitors’ visas. In 2006, Camara sought asylum and withholding of removal based on past persecution she suffered in the form of female genital mutilation (“FGM”); she listed her husband as a derivative applicant. She testified that she was unable to submit her asylum application by the one-year filing deadline because she and her husband had experienced medical problems. The IJ denied Petitioners’ applications, finding that Camara’s FGM constituted past persecution; however, he found that even if Camara’s illness was an “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to excuse the filing deadline, Camara had failed to show she filed within a reasonable period. On remand, the IJ again rejected the applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding Kalle removable because: Camara’s lead asylum application was denied; Kalle never applied for individual relief; and withholding of removal is not available derivatively. The Sixth Circuit denied review, rejecting arguments that Kalle was denied due process when the Board failed to consider evidence of his intent to apply for individual withholding of removal and that withholding of removal ought to be available derivatively.View "Camara v. Holder" on Justia Law