Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Donglan Xia, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her adopted nephew, Tian "Tim" Xia, who was born in China and entered the U.S. on a temporary visitor visa in 2011. Tim's parents relinquished their parental rights, and Xia adopted him in 2012. Xia filed the I-130 petition in 2018 to classify Tim as an immediate relative for preferential immigration status. USCIS denied the petition, stating Xia did not prove Tim's adoption fell outside the Hague Adoption Convention, that Tim did not enter the U.S. for adoption, or that Tim had compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Xia's appeal, agreeing with USCIS that Xia failed to show Tim's adoption was outside the Hague Adoption Convention and that Tim had not established compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption. The BIA noted Tim's activities in the U.S. but concluded they did not demonstrate habitual residence. Xia sought judicial review, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found the BIA's decision lacked sufficient reasoning for meaningful judicial review. The court noted the BIA did not explain which specific facts and circumstances it considered or how they negated Tim's documented connections to the U.S. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, requiring a more detailed explanation of the BIA's decision regarding Tim's habitual residence and ties to the U.S. View "Xia v. Scott" on Justia Law

A group of religious organizations employing nonimmigrant workers challenged a regulation by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that precludes special immigrant religious workers from filing their applications for special immigrant worker status and permanent resident status concurrently. The plaintiffs argued that this regulation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the APA claim as time-barred and granted summary judgment in favor of USCIS on the remaining claims. The court found that the regulation did not violate RFRA because it did not affect religious practice, and it did not violate the First Amendment because it was neutral and generally applicable. The court also ruled that the regulation did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because it was based on the risk of fraud in the special immigrant religious worker program.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and that their APA claim was not time-barred due to the Supreme Court's decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which held that a plaintiff’s challenge to a final agency action does not accrue under the APA until the plaintiff is injured by the action. The court remanded the APA claim for further proceedings.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on the RFRA and First Amendment claims, concluding that the regulation did not substantially burden the plaintiffs' religious exercise and was neutral and generally applicable. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Establishment Clause claim, finding that the regulation did not overly burden the plaintiffs' religious practice. View "Society of the Divine Word v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

Aziz El Manyary, a Moroccan citizen, entered the U.S. in 2006 on a K-1 visa and married a U.S. citizen. He applied to adjust his status but failed to attend a USCIS interview, leading to the denial of his petition. Subsequently, USCIS initiated removal proceedings, and an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him removed in absentia when he failed to appear at a hearing. Seven years later, El Manyary filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, which was denied as untimely by both the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Five years later, he filed a second motion to reopen, which the BIA also denied as untimely.The IJ denied El Manyary's first motion to reopen, citing untimeliness and lack of diligence. The BIA affirmed this decision. El Manyary's second motion to reopen was also denied by the BIA, which found it untimely and declined to toll the deadline due to lack of diligence. The BIA rejected his argument of lack of notice, noting that he had received proper notice of his hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and denied El Manyary's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on untimeliness and lack of notice. The court also found that the BIA's decision not to reopen the case sua sponte was discretionary and not subject to judicial review. The petition for review was denied, and the BIA's decision was upheld. View "Manyary v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Bryan Alexis Molina-Diaz and his wife Cony Vanessa Pasqual de Molina fled El Salvador after witnessing the murder of Cony's cousin, Jose. Bryan applied for asylum and withholding of removal, but an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed. Bryan then moved for reconsideration and to reopen based on his prior counsel’s ineffective assistance, but the Board denied both motions.The IJ found Bryan and Cony's testimony credible but concluded that Bryan failed to show that the threats he received were on account of his family relationship rather than because he witnessed the murder. The IJ also found that Bryan did not demonstrate that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control the non-state actors (MS-13 gang members) who threatened him. The Board affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Bryan did not establish the necessary nexus for asylum and that the government control requirement was not met.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Bryan argued that the requirement to show the home government’s inability or unwillingness to control non-state persecutors should be abandoned following the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Alternatively, he argued that the IJ and Board conflated inability with unwillingness and ignored evidence about conditions in El Salvador. The Fourth Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that binding precedent requires showing the home government’s inability or unwillingness to control non-state persecutors. The court found that the IJ and Board did not conflate inability with unwillingness and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding of government control. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit denied the petitions for review. View "Molina-Diaz v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The Ferchichi family, natives and citizens of Algeria, sought asylum in the United States due to their son T.F.'s severe spina bifida condition. After being denied adequate medical treatment in Algeria, they raised funds and traveled to the U.S. for T.F.'s surgery. They filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2009, claiming persecution based on T.F.'s disability and fear of future persecution due to their public criticism of the Algerian medical system.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their claims in 2011, finding that the lack of treatment was due to Algeria's inadequate healthcare system and not persecution based on T.F.'s condition. The IJ also found no evidence of future persecution, noting that their family members in Algeria had not been harmed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision in 2022, agreeing that the refusal to treat T.F. was due to the government's desire to avoid international treatment costs and not persecution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the BIA's decision, finding substantial evidence that the lack of medical care was due to Algeria's healthcare inadequacies and not persecution. The court also agreed that the Ferchichis did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution, as their family members in Algeria had not been harmed and the country condition reports did not directly link to their situation. Consequently, the court denied the Ferchichis' petition for review. View "Ferchichi v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Edgar Murillo-Chavez, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) from Mexico, entered the United States as a child without being admitted or paroled. He was granted special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status in 2010 and became an LPR in 2011. In 2016, he pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm in Oregon. In 2018, he was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon and first-degree criminal mistreatment, both in Oregon.An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Murillo removable for a firearms offense and for committing two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs). The IJ also determined that Murillo was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he committed a CIMT within seven years of being admitted. Murillo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the IJ that his 2018 convictions were CIMTs and that he was admitted when he became an LPR in 2011. Murillo then filed a motion to reopen, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the BIA denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Murillo's 2016 conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm was a removable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). The court also agreed with the BIA that Murillo was not "admitted" when he obtained SIJ status but when he became an LPR in 2011. Consequently, his 2018 conviction for first-degree criminal mistreatment, which occurred within seven years of his LPR admission, was a CIMT, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied Murillo's petitions for review. View "MURILLO-CHAVEZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

Peter Mosoko Ikome, a native and citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States in 1989 as a nonimmigrant visitor but overstayed his visa. Over the years, he engaged in various proceedings with U.S. immigration authorities regarding his status and removability. Ikome married a U.S. citizen in 1992, who filed an I-130 petition for him, but they divorced in 1998 before the petition was adjudicated. In 1991, Ikome was arrested for rape and later pled guilty to attempted rape and attempted sexual assault. His convictions were overturned in 2002, and his deportation proceedings were terminated in 2006. He was again charged with removability in 2009 and conceded removability in 2011. He married another U.S. citizen, Melissa Senior, who filed an I-130 petition for him, which was approved in 2014. However, due to marital issues, Ikome's daughter filed an I-130 petition for him in 2019.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Ikome's motion for a continuance to allow for the adjudication of his daughter's I-130 petition, citing a lack of good cause. The IJ also denied his application for cancellation of removal, finding that he did not demonstrate that his children would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" if he were removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decisions and denied Ikome's motion to remand the case to the IJ to pursue adjustment of status based on his daughter's approved I-130 petition, citing a lack of due diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of Ikome's motion for a continuance, as such determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. The court also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ikome's motion to remand, as he failed to show due diligence in pursuing adjustment of status through his daughter's petition. Consequently, the court dismissed Ikome's petition in part and denied it in part. View "Ikome v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Franciele dos Reis Olimpio Alves, a native and citizen of Brazil, along with her husband and child, arrived in the United States in 2021 and were placed in removal proceedings. They conceded removability, and Olimpio filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing abuse by her ex-partner in Brazil. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her request for relief, concluding that even if the abuse amounted to persecution, it was not on account of a protected ground.Olimpio appealed the IJ's denial of her asylum claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Olimpio's ex-partner's motivation to harm her was based on personal issues regarding their relationship, not on account of her membership in a particular social group. Olimpio, her husband, and child then petitioned for review of the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that it reviews both the IJ's and the BIA's decisions as a unit when the BIA adopts portions of the IJ's findings while adding its own analysis. The court upheld the agency's factual findings under the substantial-evidence standard, which requires upholding the findings unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise.The court held that Olimpio did not demonstrate the requisite nexus between her claimed persecution and a protected ground. The agency reasonably concluded that her ex-partner's actions were motivated by personal issues rather than her membership in the proposed social group of "Brazilian women who are victims of domestic violence." Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Sanches Alves v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Ion Lapadat and his family, all of Roma ethnicity, sought asylum in the United States due to severe mistreatment in Romania. Ion testified that he was shot in the back while collecting firewood, and his family faced attempted kidnappings, threats, and violence. They also experienced pervasive discrimination, including denial of healthcare, employment, and access to public services. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found their testimony credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), concluding that their experiences did not rise to the level of persecution.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the mistreatment did not constitute persecution and that the Roma are not a disfavored group in Romania. The BIA also found that Ion failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Ion then petitioned for review of the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA erred in its analysis. The court held that Ion's past experiences, including being shot and the severe assaults and threats faced by his family, collectively rose to the level of persecution. The court also determined that the BIA erred in concluding that the Roma are not a disfavored group in Romania, noting the long history of anti-Roma abuse and the Romanian government's documented persecutory conduct.The Ninth Circuit granted Ion's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the BIA to address the remaining elements of Ion's asylum claim and to reconsider his fear of future persecution. View "Lapadat v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Sine Phimmady, a Laotian refugee admitted to the U.S. in 1979, was convicted of multiple assault-related crimes in 1992 and 1993. He served five years in prison and was subsequently placed in removal proceedings by the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS). An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him deportable based on his convictions, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. After being released from INS custody in 2000, Phimmady rebuilt his life, maintaining steady employment and starting a family. In 2022, he successfully vacated his 1993 convictions due to a lack of proper immigration warnings during his plea hearings.Phimmady requested the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings sua sponte, citing the vacatur of his convictions. The BIA denied his motion, stating that he had not demonstrated an exceptional situation warranting reopening, particularly noting his delay in seeking post-conviction relief. Phimmady filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the BIA had a settled practice of granting reopening in cases where convictions were vacated due to defects in the criminal proceedings. The BIA denied the reconsideration, emphasizing the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including Phimmady's delay and the nature of his convictions.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the BIA does not have a settled practice of granting sua sponte reopening solely based on the vacatur of convictions. The court found that the BIA's decisions often consider the totality of circumstances, including the noncitizen's diligence in seeking post-conviction relief. Therefore, the court denied Phimmady's petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision. View "Phimmady v. Bondi" on Justia Law