Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal. The BIA vacated the decision of the IJ granting petitioner protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and cancellation of removal. Petitioner argued that the BIA acted beyond the scope of its authority under 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3) by reviewing the IJ's findings under a de novo rather than clear error standard and improperly engaging in its own factfinding. The court agreed that the BIA committed legal error in vacating the IJ's decision with respect to the CAT protection claim, and therefore granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. As to cancellation of removal, the BIA applied the correct standard of review and the court denied the petition to that extent. View "Ridore v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Pavlov, a citizen of Bulgaria, entered the U.S. in 2000 on a nonimmigrant visa and did not depart when it expired. In 2006 applied for asylum. The application included false assertions that he had entered in 2005, that he had been persecuted in Bulgaria because he is a gypsy, and that multiple attacks had broken his ribs and collarbone and knocked out two of his teeth. He repeated this story during an interview. About a year later, his wife, a newly-naturalized citizen, asked immigration officials to adjust his status to that of permanent resident. Pavlov withdrew his application for asylum, acknowledged that he entered in 2000 rather than 2005, and conceded that he is not a gypsy and was not persecuted. The IJ ordered removal, citing 8 U.S.C. 158(d)(6), which provides that if an alien has knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum and the alien has received the required notice, the alien is permanently ineligible. Pavlov had received the required notice. The Seventh Circuit denied review. Pavlov was warned twice: once in the original application form, and a second time before the interview. View "Pavlov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's decision to deny his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7) unambiguously gives aliens a right to file a motion to reopen regardless of whether they have left the United States. Therefore, the BIA's application of the departure regulation to statutory motions to reopen was invalid under Chevron's first step as the statute plainly did not impose a general physical presence requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Carias v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ghanaian citizen, was charged with being removable because he was an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. That same year, petitioner applied for asylum. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. Petitioner also petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of a motion to consider. The court addressed the second petition, holding that the departure regulation could not be applied to statutorily authorized motions to reconsider. The departure regulation therefore could not serve as a basis for denying aliens who have departed the United States their statutorily authorized right to file one motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the court granted the second petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the remand, the court denied the first petition for review and left unanswered the questions regarding whether petitioner was properly found to have been removable. View "Lari v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became permanent residents and immigrated to the United States. However, due to visa quotas and a serious backlog, by the time plaintiffs received their family-sponsored visas, their children were no longer eligible to accompany them as recipients of derivative visas. At issue was whether these children were entitled to relief under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), 8 U.S.C. 1153(h). The court concluded that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously granted automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. Accordingly, the BIA's interpretation of the statute conflicted with the plain language of the CSPA and was not entitled to deference. View "De Osorio, et al v. Scharfen, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Venezuela, sought review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The order upheld both an immigration judge's (IJ) determination that Petitioner's asylum application was time-barred and the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal on the merits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals (1) dismissed as to the asylum claim, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review that decision, as the Court is without jurisdiction to review agency findings regarding timeliness of an asylum application unless the petitioner challenges the decision on constitutional or legal grounds; and (2) denied as to the claim for withholding of removal, as substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination. View "Cabas v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's order granting plaintiffs partial injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from detaining any individual "based on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person was unlawfully present within the United States." Plaintiffs contended that defendants have a "custom, policy and practice of racial profiling and practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers pretextually and without individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome, stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped," under the auspices of enforcing immigration laws. While defendants raised a number of issues on appeal, the court only addressed the order granting "partial injunctive relief." Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of the BIA's order reversing the decision of the IJ, which granted her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ found that petitioner testified credibly and belonged to a particular social group at risk of being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. Because the court found that young, unmarried Albanian women did not constitute a social group for asylum purposes, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gjura v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of removal. Petitioner's attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an IJ because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. The IJ found that petitioner could have learned of his attorney's suspension as much as eleven days before the hearing and concluded that petitioner was not diligent in bringing his attorney's suspension. The IJ denied petitioner's motion to continue, proceeded with the hearing with petitioner unrepresented by counsel, and denied petitioner's application for asylum. The court concluded that petitioner's right to be represented by retained counsel was violated and that a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceedings was not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Montes-Lopez, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

Hanif, a citizen of Guyana, entered the U.S. on a fraudulent visa during the 1980s. After his marriage to a naturalized citizen, Hanif applied for a waiver of his ground of inadmissibility. In 2006 an IJ and adjusted Hanif to Lawful Permanent Resident status. In 2008, Khadoo, a friend, was arrested for possession of a forged instrument. In exchange for reduced charges against Khadoo, Hanif turned over $5,100 in counterfeit bills and offered to cooperate in the counterfeiting investigation. He subsequently fled the country. When Hanif returned, he was arrested and paroled into the U.S. He pled guilty to dealing in counterfeit currency, 18 USC 473. DHS began removal proceedings; he applied for waiver, claiming that removal would cause extreme hardship to his wife and children. An IJ found him ineligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. 1182(h), noting a BIA holding that an alien who entered the U.S. without inspection and later obtained LPR status through adjustment has previously been admitted as an LPR, and must satisfy the seven year continuous residence requirement. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit vacated, finding that the statutory language is unambiguous and requires that the prior admission has been made while the alien was in LPR status. View "Hanif v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law