Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The government commenced removal proceedings against Defendant, who was born in Guatemala. Defendant submitted an application for asylum or withholding of removal, basing his asylum application on his membership in a particular social group, which he defined as "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy." The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing past persecution or a reasonable probability of future persecution, that he did not show the government of Guatemala was unable or unwilling to control alleged persecutors, and that there was little evidence that his social group would be perceived as a group by society or subject to a higher incident of crime than the population. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in finding that the group "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy" was not a particular social group within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. View "Matul-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Kingsley Dayo petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on the government's violation of confidentiality in revealing to the Nigerian consulate that he had applied for asylum. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) Dayo was allowed a separate claim for relief based on the breach of confidentiality; and (2) because the BIA considered this separate claim, and because its denial of relief on that ground was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review was denied. View "Dayo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Mund, an American, married Liu, a Chinese woman in China. They moved to the U.S. For Liu to be admitted as a permanent resident, her husband had to sign an I-864 affidavit, agreeing to support his wife at 125 percent of the poverty level ($13,500 a year), if they divorced, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. They divorced two years later. Without relying on the affidavit, the divorce court ordered Mund to support Liu for one year at $500 a month, contingent on her proving that despite making at least four job applications a month, she had not found work. Mund refused to provide support specified in the federal affidavit because Liu was not seeking work. The district judge held that Liu was not entitled to support while not seeking work. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding there is no duty of mitigation with respect to obligations under the affidavit. The court noted form language that the obligation continues “until my death or the sponsored immigrant(s) have become U.S. citizens, can be credited with 40 quarters of work, depart the U.S. permanently, or die.” The level of support is meager, so the sponsored immigrant has a strong incentive to seek employment, apart from any legal duty. View "Liu v. Mund" on Justia Law

Nelson, a citizen of Jamaica, was admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1994. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to possession of 16 ounces of marijuana. In 2000, Nelson visited Canada for two days. Although his conviction rendered him inadmissible he was allowed to reenter. He did not leave the U.S. again. In 2008, Nelson was found guilty of attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana. DHS charged him as removable because his 2008 convictions constituted aggravated felonies and controlled substances offenses under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). The Immigration Judge found Nelson removable, but withdrew the findings because the convictions were on appeal and not final. In 2009, DHS issued additional charges based on the 1999 conviction. After finding Nelson removable based on the 1999 conviction, the IJ denied cancellation, concluding that Nelson had not accrued the required seven years of continuous residence, because the 1999 offense triggered “stop-time” provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1), and ended his continuous residence short of the seven-year statutory threshold. Nelson was not permitted to start a new period of continuous residence based on his 2009 reentry. The BIA found Nelson removable based on the 1999 conviction. The Third Circuit denied review. View "Nelson v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are non-immigrant aliens, authorized by the federal government to reside and work as pharmacists in the U.S. All reside in New York and are licensed pharmacists there pursuant to a statutory waiver to New York Education Law 6805(1)(6)’s requirement that only U.S. citizens or Legal Permanent Residents are eligible to obtain a pharmacist’s license in New York. The waiver provision was set to expire in 2009. The district court permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law. The Second Circuit affirmed. A state statute that discriminates against aliens who have been lawfully admitted to reside and work in the United States should be viewed in the same light under the Equal Protection Clause as one which discriminates against aliens who enjoy the right to reside here permanently. Applying strict scrutiny and finding, as the state conceded, that there are no compelling reasons for the statute’s discrimination based on alienage, the court found the statute unconstitutional. View "Paidi v. Mill" on Justia Law

Jawad, a Jordanian citizen, entered with his wife and son on a non-immigrant visa that expired in 1987. Before 1989, they had five more children in the United States. In 1998, they divorced. Six months later, Blankenship, a U.S. citizen, filed a visa petition, representing that she and Jawad had married. Blankenship later admitted that the marriage was fraudulent: Jawad had agreed to pay Blankenship $10,000. After ending his relationship with Blankenship, Jawad bought a home and invited his ex-wife and their children to move in with him. He did not divorce Blankenship. He was eventually charged as removable under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for remaining in the country on an expired visa and fraudulently entering into a marriage to secure an immigration benefit. Four years later, USCIS approved a new immediate-family visa petition for Jawad, on his behalf by his daughter, a citizen who had reached her 21st birthday. Following a hearing, the IJ found Blankenship the more credible witness, primarily because she was not promised protection from criminal liability for her testimony and decided that Jawad failed to show he merited a favorable exercise of discretion. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Jawad v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born was born in El Salvador and was admitted to the United States as legal permanent resident in 1992. In 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to resisting an executive officer in violation of Cal. Penal Code 69. In 2007, the Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. An immigration judge ultimately found that Petitioner's conviction was a categorical crime of violence, rendering Petitioner removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that because the record of Defendant's conviction may be incomplete, the case was remanded to the BIA to apply the modified categorical approach to the question of whether Defendant committed a crime of violence and whether he was removable. View "Flores-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a father and children, natives of Honduras, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1991. The father, who had uncovered tax fraud as an auditor in Honduras, sought asylum in 1992, claiming death threats. DHS began removal proceedings in 2007. The IJ denied the application finding that petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution to qualify for asylum. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review. View "Lobo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying him asylum and withholding of removal because he provided material support to a terrorist organization in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI). Petitioner argued that the BIA erred by applying the material support bar because (1) the organization Petitioner supported was engaged in legitimate political violence, and (2) Petitioner provided support under duress. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the material support bar does not include an implied exception for individuals who assist organizations engaged in legitimate political violence or who provide support under duress. View "Annachamy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights. View "Ayton v. Holder" on Justia Law