Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, sought review of the BIA's order affirming an IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court was presented with a complete absence of evidence as to the individuals and motives behind the deaths and disappearance of petitioner's children. Without more, the court could not conclude that petitioner and his wife and son were not the casualties of general civil unrest, crime, or societal violence. Therefore, the court affirmed the BIA's holding that the incidents at issue did not constitute past persecution on account of a protected ground. The court also held that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner did not qualify as a refugee and was ineligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence; petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal; and petitioner's claim of humanitarian asylum was waived. View "Garcia-Colindres, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Zheng, born in1984 in the People’s Republic of China, arrived in the U.S. illegally in 2001. After receiving a Notice to Appear, she filed applications for political asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming persecution because of her practice of Falun Gong. An IJ rejected Zheng’s applications because her testimony was “rather inconsistent and almost completely unsubstantiated.” The Board affirmed and the Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. Zheng remained in the U.S. and, in 2010, married Jiang, with whom she has two children. In 2011, Zheng sought to reopen proceedings with the Board, based on the birth of her two children and increased enforcement of China’s family planning policy. The Department of Homeland Security opposed Zheng’s motion, arguing that it was not filed within 90 days of entry of a final administrative order of removal (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)) and was based on changed personal circumstances rather than a change in country conditions. The Board denied the motion. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Lin, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, entered the U.S. illegally in 2004. In 2008, he was served with a Notice to Appear and conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), but petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Lin asserted that he fled China to escape religious persecution because of his Christianity. He claims that he was detained for five days, and that he was interrogated about his church, severely beaten, and deprived of water and sleep. The IJ denied Lin relief and ordered him removed, based on Lin’s failure to seek asylum within one year of his arrival, and on an adverse credibility determination. Lin asked the BIA to reopen proceedings, claiming to have previously unavailable evidence showing that he is now wanted for arrest in China for his religious practices. Lin did not explain how he obtained this new documentation, nor did he note any efforts to authenticate it. Lin also failed to file a new application for asylum. The BIA held that Lin did not satisfy his burden of showing prima facie eligibility for relief and denied his motion to reopen. The Third Circuit denied his appeal. View "Lin v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Husband and wife, Pakistani citizens, entered the U.S. in 2006 and applied for asylum several months later. In 1984, wife had left her native India for an arranged marriage. Her new hometown of Karachi was full of violence, crime, and corruption spurred by political and ethnic rivalries. Wife and her first husband began supporting the MQM party in 1988. By 1991, she became disillusioned by the party’s involvement in illegal activities. She began an extramarital romantic relationship with her current husband, divorced and remarried, and began receiving threats from MQM members. She never reported the threats because she feared losing her job and the MQM controlled the police. The couple survived three targeted incidents of violence between 2002 and 2005. The immigration judge noted their “consistent credible testimony” but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. He concluded that only the kidnapping incident rose to the level of persecution but did not occur “on account of” their political opinion and that they had not shown that the government of Pakistan was unwilling or unable to protect them. The Board dismissed their appeal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Shaikh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Vrljicak arrived in the U.S. from Serbia under a work visa, which expired September 30, 2009.He did not leave and was in unauthorized status on July 14, 2010, when he applied for asylum on the ground that his native land would persecute him because of his sexual orientation. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the IJ that Vrljicak took too long to seek asylum, 8 U.S.C. 1158 (a)(2)(B), but held that he is entitled to withholding of removal and remanded. The Seventh Circuit denied review, rejecting a challenge that the Board should have excused his delay under 8 C.F.R. 1208.4(a)(5)(iv), which reads: “The applicant maintained Temporary Protected Status, lawful immigrant or nonimmigrant status, or was given parole, until a reasonable period before the filing of the asylum application.” View "Vrljicak v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of Angola, sought review of an order by the BIA denying his petition to obtain relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182. The BIA denied petitioner asylum and withholding of removal under the INA because he was a member of, and provided material support to, a terrorist organization. The court held that the BIA did not err in deeming petitioner statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA's Material Support Bar. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "de Almeida Viegas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner Hector Barrera–Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal from the United States. He sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. "Because Congress tightly constrains [the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals'] power to review discretionary aspects of the BIA’s orders of removal, we must dismiss in part his petition for lack of jurisdiction." The Court could, however, review constitutional claims and questions of law involving statutory construction. In this case, Petitioner's eligibility for cancellation of removal hinged on whether he maintained at least ten years of continuous physical presence in this country, as required by the terms of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA relied on a reasonable statutory construction in finding Petitioner failed to satisfy the continuous-presence requirement, the Court denied the remainder of the petition for review. View "Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, arguing that his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Because petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, he was not entitled to relief. View "Abraham v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that the pattern and practice delineated in Section 223.11(m)(2) of the Immigration Service Adjudicator's Field Manual violated the plain and unambiguous language of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. After reviewing the statutory language, the court concluded that the Immigration Service's pattern and practice of limiting the date of lawful permanent residence based on the date of marriage was contrary to the unambiguous language of the CAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Hernandez v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law