Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for voluntary departure. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by considering facts which, in a criminal case, might be evidence of a crime. He contended that in doing so, the IJ was using a crime as evidence against him even though he had not then been convicted of the crime alleged against him. The evidence of petitioner's sexual conduct with a minor was probative as to his bad character and undesirability for permanent residency, and it was therefore properly considered by the IJ. Although petitioner had not been convicted of a crime for the activity, he admitted the underlying facts before the IJ. Further, the IJ's discretionary consideration of that admission did not violate petitioner's due process rights by denying him a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the court held that the IJ committed no error and denied the petition. View "Rojas v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal issued by the BIA, adopting and approving the IJ's finding that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). The court concluded that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by admitting Form I-213 and her admitted actions were more than mere reluctant acquiescence in the plan of another, but were instead affirmative acts in violation of section 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). Because the IJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the court denied the petition for review. View "Sanchez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an undocumented Mexican national, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's claim that her due process rights were violated by the fact that her husband was granted cancellation of removal four years earlier based on similar facts. The court vacated and remanded, however, on petitioner's claim that the BIA erred as a matter of law when it held that an applicant for cancellation of removal's ability to demonstrate hardship to his qualifying relatives was necessarily undercut by the possibility that the applicant could have alternative means to immigrate at some undefined point in the future. View "Arteaga-De Alvarez, et al v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners, a wife and husband, were Chinese nationals. In removal proceedings, Petitioners argued that, if repatriated, they would be subjected to involuntary sterilization. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Petitioners' testimony was not believable and, therefore, Petitioners had failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) affirmed the denial of Petitioners' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture; and (2) denied Petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought judicial review. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding to sustain the adverse credibility determinations; and (2) the IJ and BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioners' claims for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and his sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court properly determined that defendant's 2007 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code 11378 was a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and the district court's imposition of supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Valdavinos-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge after deportation. Defendant claimed that the IJ failed to advise him about the availability of voluntary departure. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that an alien could not collaterally attack his removal order by claiming that an immigration judge failed to advise him about relief for which he was statutorily ineligible, even if the government did not introduce before the IJ noticeable documentation of the aggravated felony conviction that rendered him ineligible. The court also held that defendant's sentence was valid. View "United States v. Bustos-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Zhang is a Chinese citizen. She was stopped by INS upon her entry to the U.S. without valid documents in 2001. In 2002, Zhang was ordered removed; the BIA affirmed. Zhang did not leave the country; she converted to Roman Catholicism, was married in the Catholic Church, and had two children. In 2011, Zhang moved to reopen her case based upon the claim that conditions in China had materially worsened with respect to: religious persecution and enforcement of China’s coercive population control program. She also challenged the adverse credibility finding made during her 2002 proceedings and alleged that she was denied an opportunity to seek new legal representation after her counsel withdrew. The Board denied the petition on all claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Board abused its discretion in summarily dismissing certain evidence regarding Zhang’s claims of religious persecution. The court affirmed dismissal of the claim regarding the enforcement of coercive population control because Zhang failed to demonstrate that country conditions in this respect have worsened in her native province. View "Zhang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Serbia, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming the oral decision of the IJ, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ rejected petitioner's claim of past persecution, explaining that his failure to demonstrate that the abuse he suffered had a sufficient nexus to a protected ground. The court concluded, however, that the proposed group of cooperating witnesses was a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for the agency to consider whether petitioner was a member of the group, whether the 2005 attacks and threats directed against petitioner amounted to persecution, and, if so, whether that persecution was on account of his membership in the group. View "Gashi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Moyaho, a Mexican citizen, first entered the U.S. in 1995, “without inspection.” Since then, he has lived and worked in the U.S., paid taxes, and, with his wife, raised three children, each born in the U.S. In 2005, DHS instituted removal proceedings. -Moyaho admitted his unlawful status, but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), which provides for cancellation if the alien has been continuously present for 10 years; displays good moral character; has not been convicted of specified offenses; and removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. The application was denied on the ground that Moyaho did not demonstrate that his children would suffer qualifying hardship. The Board affirmed. He brought a number of motions, which were denied. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over most of Moyaho’s claims and that the Board did not err in denying his other motions. View "Cruz-Moyaho v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law