Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was born and raised in Ethiopia in an influential family in the Oromo ethnic community. His relatives were active in the Mecha Tulema Association, outlawed by the Ethiopian government in 2004, and were arrested for their activities. Petitioner obtained a false passport. A statement, signed after his arrest by ICE indicated that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Ethiopia. In defense of removal, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. An IJ and the BIA rejected his claims. The First Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded for the BIA to address: whether, in light of the rebuttable presumption of credibility to which petitioner is entitled (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), he had not met his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal and, if the IJ found petitioner's testimony "otherwise credible," whether section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) required the IJ to provide petitioner with notice of the need for corroborating evidence and an opportunity to provide that evidence or explain why it was not reasonably available. View "Guta-Tolossa v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2002, petitioner a citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the U.S. without authorization and was placed in removal proceedings, where he initially denied that he was removable. He sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he would suffer persecution if returned to his homeland, based on his purported membership in a particular social group, defined as young Salvadoran men who have resisted gang recruitment and whose parents are unavailable to protect them, and for his alleged anti-gang, pro-establishment "political opinion," 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(42)(A). An Immigration Judge and the BIA rejected the arguments. The First Circuit denied an appeal, finding that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion View "Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Petitioner sought remand to the BIA for consideration of issues he raised before the BIA that were not explicitly addressed in the BIA's disposition of his immigration appeal. The court held that the IJ and BIA did not err in their assessment that it was reasonable to expect further corroborative evidence from petitioner to support his asylum application. The court remanded, however, because it was not apparent from the BIA's order whether the BIA addressed petitioner's claim that deficiencies in the IJ hearing transcript masked his IJ hearing testimony that corroborative testimony was unavailable. View "Omondi v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen who has lived in the U.S. for many years and is a lawful permanent resident, was ordered removed because of two Illinois convictions for possessing and trafficking in cocaine. He sought cancellation of removal, based on having lawful permanent resident status for at least five years and having resided here for at least seven years without conviction of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The BIA affirmed denial, citing petitioner's long history of arrests and convictions. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal, rejecting a claim that the BIA overlooked mitigating circumstances in the form of family hardship. Petitioner's parents, wife, and children are U.S. citizens and do not plan to relocate to Mexico if the petitioner is sent back there. His parents claim that they would be afraid to visit because of violence in Mexico. View "Munoz-Pacheco v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner,a citizen of Guatemala applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 111 Stat. 2160. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he was statutorily ineligible for NACARA relief because he last entered the U.S. as a crewman (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(1)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that he was not a "crewman" when he last entered the U.S. Petitioner was given adequate notice that he was removeable for having remained in the U.S. longer than permitted; whether he was a "crewman" was only relevant to his petition for cancellation. View "Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in England to an American serviceman father and an English mother, petitioned for review of his removal proceedings. At issue was a 1952 statute, 8 U.S.C. 1409(a), regarding "legitimation" and Arizona state law, Ariz. Rev. Stat. 8-601. Because petitioner was a legitimate son of his natural parents under Arizona law, and because the identity of his natural father is and has always been undisputed, he appeared to have met the requirements of Former 1401(a)(7). However, the court must address whether legitimation required an affirmative act, as the district court held, rather than simply the status of being legitimate; and whether petitioner's paternity was "established" under Arizona law. The court answered the first issue in the negative and the second issue in the affirmative, holding that petitioner was a citizen of the United States. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review in No. 08-73946 and remanded with instructions for the agency to vacate the removal order against him. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the petition for review in No. 07-074042, and dismissed as moot the appeal in No. 10-16491. View "Anderson, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the U.S. in 1992 with his wife and son. They overstayed their visas. A daughter was born in 1993 in Los Angeles. Ten days later, petitioner filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158 & 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16–18. In 2007, the government filed Notices to Appear in immigration court, charging the three with removability. They sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Petitioner testified that he had been attacked and threatened several times by opponents of his political party. The government noted 2007 reforms in Bangladesh. Petitioner also voiced concerns about his daughter, food shortages, substandard health care, and the cost of education for English speakers. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed an appeal. View "Hasan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, sought review of a decision by the BIA to deny him protection under the CAT and to deny his motion to reopen the case to consider new evidence. The court held that collateral estoppel bound the BIA to its prior determination of the facts and legal consequences regarding past incidents of government-sponsored violence against petitioner's family due to his father's activities supporting Christianity over Islam. The court also concluded that the BIA abused its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to reopen to consider the significant new evidence of a Nigerian arrest warrant that charged petitioner personally with inciting opposition to Sharia law. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Oyeniran v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

After illegally reentering the United States for the seventh time, defendant was again charged with and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C. 202 and 557. On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a downward variance in light of United States v. Jimenez-Perez where the lack of fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. Further, defendant did not argue at sentencing for a downward variance on this ground and the district court committed no plain error in failing to comment sua sponte on the issue. View "United States v. Elodio-Benitez" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry after removal and subsequently appealed his 77-month prison sentence as substantively unreasonable. Given defendant's extensive criminal history and weak claim of cultural assimilation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. The court also held that lack of a fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 and the district court committed no plain error on that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Paulino-Duarte" on Justia Law