Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

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

Javi Porter, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and a native of Jamaica, was convicted under Virginia law for possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) classified this conviction as an aggravated felony and initiated removal proceedings against him. Porter sought review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings and found him removable as an aggravated felon.The IJ denied Porter’s motion to terminate the removal proceedings, concluding that DHS had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Porter was convicted of an aggravated felony. The IJ sustained the charge of removability and denied Porter’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The IJ later issued a final summary order finding Porter removable as charged. Porter appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ erred in denying his motion to terminate the removal proceedings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Porter’s Virginia drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court found that the Virginia statute under which Porter was convicted is divisible by the identity of the controlled substance and applied the modified categorical approach. The court concluded that possession with intent to distribute any amount of methamphetamine is a federal felony under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Therefore, Porter’s conviction under Virginia law is a categorical match to a felony offense under the CSA, rendering him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The court denied Porter’s petition for review. View "Porter v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Javier Chavez Dominguez, a Mexican citizen, was arrested in North Carolina in August 2022 on state drug charges. After confirming his identity and criminal history, he was charged with Illegal Reentry after Removal Subsequent to Conviction for Aggravated Felony under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). Dominguez pleaded guilty and received a 48-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release. He appealed the sentence, presenting new arguments not raised in the district court.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina handled the initial proceedings. Dominguez faced both state and federal charges, first pleading guilty to state charges and receiving a 10 to 21-month sentence. Upon release, he was detained by ICE and later charged federally. He pleaded guilty to the federal charge without filing any motions and did not object to the presentence investigation report (PSR), which calculated his advisory Guidelines range as 30 to 37 months.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Dominguez raised four main challenges: the classification of his 2015 Arizona conviction as an aggravated felony, the constitutionality of his prior removal proceedings, the calculation of his Sentencing Guidelines range, and the substantive reasonableness of his upward variant sentence. The court found no reversible error in the district court's decisions. It held that Dominguez's guilty plea waived his right to challenge the constitutionality of his prior removals and that the district court did not plainly err in its Guidelines calculation or in imposing the upward variant sentence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "US v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Melvin Funez-Ortiz, a Honduran national, fled to the United States to escape violence and threats from a gang in Honduras. The gang had murdered several of his family members, shot him, and continued to threaten his family. After entering the U.S. in 2018, Funez was apprehended by immigration officials and later convicted of various offenses in Virginia. Following his imprisonment, he was transferred to immigration custody, where he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).An immigration judge (IJ) denied Funez’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal but granted his application for deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ found that Funez would likely be tortured by the gang with the acquiescence of the Honduran government if he were returned to Honduras. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).The BIA reversed the IJ’s decision, concluding that the IJ’s finding that Funez could not safely relocate within Honduras was clearly erroneous. The BIA also disagreed with the IJ’s determination that the Honduran government would acquiesce to Funez’s torture, suggesting that the man in a military police uniform who threatened Funez’s family was likely a gang member rather than a government official.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court found that the BIA had ignored significant evidence regarding the gang’s continued threats and activities after 2018, which could impact Funez’s ability to relocate safely within Honduras. The court also determined that the BIA improperly reweighed evidence regarding whether the man in uniform was a government official. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit granted Funez’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Funez-Ortiz v. McHenry" on Justia Law

Sheldon Turner, born in Jamaica to Jamaican parents Desmond and Roslyn Turner, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1990. His parents divorced in 1987, and his mother remarried twice, including a remarriage to Desmond in 1994. Roslyn naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1999 while still married to Desmond. Turner was convicted of a felony in 2016, leading to removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Turner’s motion to terminate removal proceedings, finding that Turner did not derive U.S. citizenship from his mother’s naturalization because his parents were married at the time of her naturalization, thus not meeting the legal separation requirement under former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3). The IJ’s decision was based on the statute’s plain language and the rationale explained in Levy v. U.S. Attorney General. Turner’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was dismissed, with the BIA agreeing that the statute requires a continuing legal separation at the time of naturalization.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the BIA’s interpretation. The court held that former 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a)(3) imposes a continuing requirement of legal separation that must exist at the time all other conditions of derivative citizenship are satisfied. Since Turner’s mother was married to his father at the time of her naturalization, Turner did not derive automatic citizenship. The court denied Turner’s petition for review. View "Turner v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Edgard Ernesto Aguilar-Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was removed from the United States in 2009 and unlawfully reentered in 2022. After being apprehended, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice of reinstatement of his prior removal order. However, due to the inadvertent disclosure of his personal information, DHS dismissed the withholding-only proceedings and placed him in removal proceedings. Aguilar-Quintanilla admitted to being removable and applied for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he would be tortured by the Salvadoran government as a suspected gang member due to his tattoos and criminal record.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding Aguilar-Quintanilla's testimony not credible and determining that general country conditions evidence alone did not entitle him to CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision, and Aguilar-Quintanilla filed a petition for review, challenging only the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Aguilar-Quintanilla's removal did not moot his appeal because ICE could facilitate his return to the United States if his petition were granted. The court held that the BIA and IJ failed to consider critical evidence, including affidavits describing a 2023 incident where police searched for Aguilar-Quintanilla at his father's home, in their likelihood-of-torture assessment. The court granted Aguilar-Quintanilla's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Aguilar-Quintanilla v. McHenry" on Justia Law

Romio Villagomez, a native and citizen of the Federated States of Micronesia, was convicted of felony battery resulting in substantial bodily harm under Nevada Revised Statutes § 200.481(2)(b). Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him, arguing that his conviction qualified as a crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).An Immigration Judge determined that Villagomez’s conviction was indeed a crime of violence and ordered his removal. Villagomez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal. He then petitioned for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Villagomez’s conviction under Nevada law qualified as a crime of violence. The court noted that a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) requires the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The court referenced its previous decision in United States v. Fitzgerald, which held that the attempt version of the same Nevada statute is categorically a crime of violence.Villagomez argued that the Nevada statute criminalizes mere unwanted touching and allows for conviction where substantial bodily harm occurs recklessly. The court rejected these arguments, holding that causing substantial bodily harm in Nevada necessarily requires Johnson-level force, which is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The court also held that Nevada law requires intentional conduct for battery resulting in substantial bodily harm, and thus, the statute does not encompass injuries caused by reckless deployments of force.The Ninth Circuit concluded that Nevada felony battery resulting in substantial bodily harm is categorically a crime of violence and affirmed the Board’s removability determination. The petition for review was denied. View "VILLAGOMEZ V. MCHENRY" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted Senate File 2340, which criminalizes the presence of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States within its boundaries. The Act mandates that aliens violating it must return to the country they reentered from and prohibits judges from abating state prosecutions due to pending or possible federal determinations of the alien’s immigration status. The United States sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act, which the district court granted. Iowa appealed the decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled that the United States had standing to sue and could state a cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the United States established a likelihood of success on the merits, showing that federal immigration law preempts the Act under both conflict and field preemption. The court also found that irreparable harm would occur if the Act went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored granting the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, examining factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the United States had standing and an equitable cause of action to enjoin the Act. The court found that the Act likely conflicts with federal immigration law, as it obstructs the discretion of federal officials and creates a parallel enforcement scheme. The court also agreed that the United States demonstrated irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Act was affirmed. View "United States v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

Krishna Kishore Geda and Chaya Durga Sruthi Keerthi Nunna, married Indian nationals residing in the U.S. on employment-based nonimmigrant visas, filed I-485 applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residents. After waiting nearly eight years, they were informed that their applications were on hold due to the unavailability of the required immigrant visa. Frustrated by the delay, they sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its Director, claiming unlawful withholding and unreasonable delay under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed their claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, stating that the Adjudication Hold Policy is a discretionary decision shielded from judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Third Circuit held that the decision to delay adjudication of the Gedas' applications under the Adjudication Hold Policy is a discretionary action specified under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion over the adjustment of status process. Consequently, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of discretionary decisions by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court concluded that only the executive and legislative branches could provide the relief sought by the Gedas. View "Geda v. Director United States Citizenship and Immigration" on Justia Law