Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection at the age of seventeen, sought judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was a refugee under immigration laws because he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In addition, Petitioner was not eligible for relief under the CAT, as he set forth no evidence that there was any prospect he would be tortured if he was returned to El Salvador. View "Perlera-Sola v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA affirming an IJ's grant of a motion by the DHS to pretermit his applications for adjustment of immigration status and for a waiver pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(h). The court held that the district court erred in finding petitioner barred under section 212(h) from obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility and granted the petition for review. View "Leiba v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) later issued Petitioner a notice to appear in removal proceedings. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for withholding of removal but granted his application for voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err by determining that Petitioner had not been a victim of past persecution in Guatemala; (2) Petitioner's argument that the BIA erred in finding he was not a member of a particular social group was not grounds for granting his petition for review; and (3) imposing a requirement of "social visibility" as to "social groups" did not constitute an arbitrary and capricious agency interpretation. View "Tay-Chan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in gang violence in Honduras since he filed his previous motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Lo, a citizen of Senegal, entered the U.S. in 1997 with a non-immigrant student visa, and reunited with Dieng. Dieng had used a false passport to enter the U.S. in 2003. They married in 2005 and their daughter was born in 2006. Dieng has another daughter who remained in Gambia. The couple submitted affirmative asylum applications in 2007. USCIS denied the application and initiated removals. Dieng alleged persecution based on her race, religion, and membership in a particular social group (Fulani ethnic group), stemming from past unsuccessful attempts by relatives to circumcise her, and her fear that, if removed to Senegal, she and her daughters would be at risk of being subjected to genital mutilation. Despite acknowledgment that his people do not practice circumcision, Lo thought that their daughter was at risk at any location in Senegal. The IJ rejected the claims. The BIA and Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal. Substantial evidence supported a finding that Dieng does not harbor a well-founded fear of persecution for herself or her daughters. View "Dieng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitioned for review of a final order of removal of the BIA, affirming the decision of the IJ to deny her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She also argued that the BIA violated her equal protection rights in denying her petition to terminate removal proceedings under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S.C. 3607(a). The court concluded that petitioner's equal protection challenge to the FFOA failed and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Therefore, the court dismissed in part and denied in party the petition for review. View "Brikova v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. Because the basis of the BIA's rejection of petitioner's past persecution claim was unclear, the court remanded to the BIA for clarification. Remand was also necessary because if the BIA was upholding the IJ's adoption of a blanket rule that past persecution to family members could never be the basis for a past persecution claim, this was an incorrect statement of law. Alternatively, if the BIA based its decision on a finding that petitioner's claims of past persecution based on past harms to his family were not on account of a protected ground, the BIA engaged in improper factfinding. The court also remanded to the BIA to conduct proper factual review on the issue of whether petitioner was eligible for cancellation of removal. View "Flores v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, was eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal despite having a criminal conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1182, the provision granting her eligibility was repealed and IIRIRA specified that aliens with a criminal conviction like petitioner's were no longer eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal. On appeal, petitioner argued that this constituted impermissible retroactive legislation as applied to her case. Because the court concluded that petitioner could invoke the presumption against retroactive application, she was entitled to pursue section 212(c) relief. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on return to India on the basis of his political opinion and thus was not entitled to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1231, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the determination that petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. Further, because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner was not more likely than not to face torture if removed to India, the court concluded that the IJ and the Board did not err in finding petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, petitioner failed to establish that his due process rights were violated by having an incompetent interpreter that provided inadequate translation. View "Singh v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Erasmo Rojas-Perez (Rojas), the lead petitioner in this case, and his wife, Angelica Garcia-Angeles (Garcia), sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioners, who had entered the United States without inspection, had filed applications for withholding of removal based on their stated belief that if the family returned to Mexico, their son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S., could be kidnapped and held for ransom. The BIA reasoned that Petitioners' stated fear was not properly grounded in their belonging to a discernible social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act because "fear of persecution based on perceived wealth does not constitute a particular social group under the [INA]." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Rojas's petition for review, as the BIA's determinations were based on substantial evidence in the record. View "Rojas-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law