Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The petitioner, a citizen of Sierra Leone and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in the District of Columbia in 2014 of attempted first-degree sexual abuse and kidnapping. The factual basis for his conviction included both forceful digital penetration and forceful penile penetration. After serving his prison sentence, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, specifically as “rape” or “an attempt to commit an aggravated felony,” and also as a crime of violence.In removal proceedings before the Immigration Judge, the petitioner admitted the factual allegations but disputed that his conviction was an aggravated felony, arguing that the D.C. statute criminalized digital penetration, which he claimed was not covered by the generic federal definition of rape. The Immigration Judge ordered removal, finding the conviction constituted attempted rape. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, relying on its precedent that the generic definition of rape included digital penetration, and dismissed other removability grounds as unnecessary. The Board also denied the petitioner’s requests for a waiver of inadmissibility, but remanded for further consideration of his claim under the Convention Against Torture, directing the Immigration Judge to consider aggregate risks of torture. After additional hearings, the Immigration Judge again denied relief, and the Board affirmed, declining to revisit removability.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed only the Board’s removability determination. It held that the generic federal definition of “rape” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) does not include digital penetration, joining other circuits. Consequently, the Board erred in concluding the petitioner’s conviction categorically matched the federal definition of rape. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings on other removability grounds. View "Barrie v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Javier Hernandez was a participant in a transnational criminal operation that smuggled Cuban migrants into Mexico for eventual entry into the United States. His primary role involved stealing boats from Southwest Florida, which he delivered to co-conspirators in Mexico. These vessels were used to transport migrants from Cuba or were sold to support the smuggling enterprise, including bribing law enforcement. Hernandez also transported stolen vehicles to Mexico for similar purposes. He was compensated for each delivery and admitted to earning substantial profits from these activities.Federal authorities identified Hernandez through investigative techniques including cell-site location tracking and the recovery of his cell phone, which had been seized by Mexican authorities. The government obtained and executed a warrant to search his phone, extracting relevant data. After initial technical difficulties, a second extraction was performed after the warrant’s nominal expiration date but while the phone was still in government custody. Hernandez was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on five counts, including conspiracy to encourage unlawful entry, transportation of stolen vessels, trafficking in vehicles with altered VINs, and money laundering. He moved to suppress the evidence from the second extraction, but the district court denied the motion, applied several sentencing enhancements, and imposed a sentence of ninety-five months.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the second extraction did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 or the Fourth Amendment, as Rule 41(e)(2)(B) allows for off-site copying and review of electronic information after the warrant period. The court also found that even if there were a procedural violation, suppression would not be warranted due to the agents’ good faith and lack of prejudice. The court determined that the evidence was sufficient to sustain all convictions and found no reversible error in the sentencing calculations or guideline enhancements. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

A woman from Guatemala endured severe physical and sexual abuse by her former intimate partner over several years. Her abuser confined her, deprived her and her daughter of food, and violently assaulted both. The petitioner escaped with her daughter to her family, but her ex-partner continued his violent behavior, including an attempted abduction and assault on her brother. After authorities failed to apprehend her abuser, the petitioner fled Guatemala and entered the United States in 2014, leaving her daughter with her parents. She sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution based on her membership in a particular social group: “Guatemalan women unable to leave a domestic relationship.”The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge concluded that the petitioner had not established the required nexus between the abuse she suffered and her asserted protected social group. The judge found that the abuser’s actions stemmed from his violent nature, not from a desire to overcome a characteristic of the petitioner’s group. The judge also determined that she failed to show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, finding no clear error in the judge’s conclusions regarding lack of nexus and government protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner failed to develop any argument challenging the legal and factual bases for the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling regarding the lack of nexus between the harm and her asserted protected status. The court concluded that, without a developed argument addressing this dispositive issue, her asylum and withholding of removal claims could not succeed. View "Cante Mijangos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two Nepalese nationals, a husband and wife, entered the United States and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Their claims were based on alleged threats and extortion by Maoist political opponents in Nepal, purportedly due to the husband’s political activity and his work for an international non-governmental organization. The couple presented testimony, including from two friends who corroborated the threats, and submitted documentary evidence such as letters from the Maoists, police, and their political party, along with news articles and country conditions reports.After their asylum application was denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the family was referred to the Boston Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge found the lead petitioner’s testimony not credible, citing inconsistencies and contradictions with his affidavit and other evidence. The judge concluded this adverse credibility finding was “fatal” to the asylum claim and also denied withholding of removal and CAT relief, reasoning that the same credibility concerns prevented meeting the higher legal standards for those claims.On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, focusing on the lead petitioner’s lack of credibility and finding that, absent credible testimony, the claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief could not be sustained. The petitioners then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit held that the agency erred by failing to consider documentary evidence and additional witness testimony independent of the lead petitioner’s testimony, and by applying the wrong legal standard to the withholding of removal claim. The court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Khanal v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The defendant, a native and citizen of Jamaica, repeatedly entered the United States unlawfully after being removed several times due to criminal convictions, including firearms and drug offenses. In May 2023, he was apprehended at the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit and charged with unauthorized reentry following his removal subsequent to conviction for an aggravated felony, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326. This constituted his eleventh felony conviction and fifth felony immigration conviction under § 1326.After being indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that § 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating against Mexican and other Latino immigrants. The district court rejected his motion, finding that he failed to link the legislative history and intent of the 1929 Act and its predecessors to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which codified § 1326. The court also determined that he did not provide evidence of disparate impact or invidious discriminatory purpose regarding § 1326’s enforcement, and adopted the analysis from United States v. Carrillo-Lopez, 68 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2023). The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment and he timely appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment de novo and its factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the defendant failed to establish discriminatory intent or disparate impact under the Arlington Heights framework. The court emphasized that the legislative history of the 1929 Act is not controlling for § 1326, and Congress is not required to purge previous discriminatory intent when enacting new legislation. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. Myrie" on Justia Law

Rodriguez Irias, a Honduran national, entered the United States without valid entry documentation in January 2019. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and a hearing was scheduled for February 2023 with notices sent to her last address on record. Rodriguez Irias did not appear at the hearing, and the immigration judge ordered her removal in absentia. In October 2023, her attorney filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, claiming ineffective assistance for failing to file an appearance and not informing Rodriguez Irias of the hearing date. The attorney submitted a letter he claimed to have sent to the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board, but provided no proof of receipt.The Immigration Judge denied the motion to reopen, finding that Rodriguez Irias had not demonstrated lack of notice and that her ineffective assistance claim was both untimely and unsupported by exceptional circumstances. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was procedurally deficient under Matter of Lozada because there was no evidence that the disciplinary board had received the attorney’s self-report. The BIA also determined Rodriguez Irias had constructive notice of her hearing and declined to reopen the case sua sponte, noting the relief sought could not be granted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision for abuse of discretion. The court held that Rodriguez Irias had not satisfied the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada, specifically the requirement to provide proof that her counsel’s complaint was submitted to the appropriate disciplinary authorities. The court also determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision not to reopen the case sua sponte. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Irias v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case concerns an individual who was born in El Salvador in 1981 to unmarried parents. His biological father acknowledged paternity by signing the birth certificate, but the two did not have a relationship. At age 11, he immigrated to the United States as a lawful permanent resident to join his mother. When he was 16, his mother became a naturalized U.S. citizen. As an adult, he was convicted of drug-related offenses. Years later, removal proceedings were initiated against him despite an earlier case memorandum indicating he had derived citizenship through his mother.An immigration judge (IJ) initially denied his motion to terminate removal proceedings, finding that he failed to prove his paternity had not been legitimated under Salvadoran law, and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirmed the removal order but remanded for reconsideration of his claim under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Subsequent IJ and Board orders continued to find him removable and not a U.S. citizen, though relief under CAT was granted and later vacated. Both sides appealed these orders, leading to multiple remands and re-entries of removal orders. Ultimately, the Board reaffirmed its prior rulings, and the petitioner remained in immigration detention.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the consolidated petitions. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review both the 2024 and 2025 Board orders. On the merits, the court determined that, under the relevant federal statute in effect when the petitioner’s mother naturalized, his paternity had not been “established by legitimation.” Because all other statutory requirements were met, he automatically became a U.S. citizen upon his mother’s naturalization. The court granted the petitions, vacated the Board’s orders, and remanded with instructions to terminate removal proceedings. View "Lopez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Immigrant investors who seek permanent residency in the United States may do so by investing in regional centers that promote economic growth and job creation. In 2022, Congress reformed this program, establishing new oversight measures including an annual fee for all regional centers to fund monitoring and fraud prevention. EB5 Holdings, which owns two regional centers designated before 2022, challenged the application of this fee to “pre-RIA” (pre-2022 Reform and Integrity Act) regional centers. EB5 argued that only centers designated after the 2022 reforms should be subject to the annual fee, claiming the statute did not authorize the fee’s collection from centers designated under previous law.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed EB5’s Administrative Procedure Act challenge after the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that all regional centers must pay the new fee to maintain their status. The district court denied EB5’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that the fee provision unambiguously applies to both pre- and post-RIA regional centers.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the statutory text requires all currently designated regional centers—regardless of when they were initially designated—to pay the annual Integrity Fund fee. The court reasoned that the phrase “designated under subparagraph (E)” refers to the current status of being designated to operate as a regional center under the reformed program, not the timing of original designation. The court further rejected the argument that applying the fee to pre-RIA centers was impermissibly retroactive, as the fee only applies prospectively to centers wishing to maintain their designation. Thus, the district court’s dismissal was affirmed. View "EB5 Holdings Inc. v. Edlow" on Justia Law

Two Mexican nationals entered the United States illegally, one in 2009 and the other in 2001. In 2025, both were apprehended by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, who determined that they were inadmissible because they were present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted or paroled. Consequently, DHS initiated removal proceedings against both individuals and detained them under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without bond pending the outcome of those proceedings.Each petitioner requested a bond hearing before an immigration judge, but both requests were denied on the grounds that § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandated detention without bond for “applicants for admission” who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Subsequently, both individuals filed habeas corpus petitions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, arguing that they were entitled to bond hearings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The district courts agreed, concluding that because the petitioners were not actively “seeking admission” at the time of apprehension, their detention was governed by § 1226(a), which allows for discretionary bond. Both petitioners received bond hearings and were released.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the consolidated government appeals. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district courts’ orders. The court held that individuals present in the United States without having been admitted—regardless of how long they have resided here—are deemed “applicants for admission” under § 1225(a)(1) and are therefore subject to mandatory detention under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without eligibility for bond during removal proceedings. The court found that the statutory text, structure, and context supported the government’s interpretation, and the prior practice of allowing bond did not override the statute’s plain meaning. The cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding. View "Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The defendant, a legal permanent resident who immigrated from the Dominican Republic, was arrested in Massachusetts after police observed him engaging in a suspected drug exchange. Upon searching his vehicle, officers found heroin, cash, and drug paraphernalia, leading to a charge of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. In 2018, the defendant pleaded guilty and received a suspended sentence with probation. Approximately two years later, while returning from the Dominican Republic, he was detained by immigration officials who informed him that his conviction made him automatically deportable, a consequence he claims not to have understood when entering his plea.The Salem Division of the District Court Department accepted the guilty plea. In 2022, the defendant moved to withdraw his plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney had not adequately explained the immigration consequences. He submitted affidavits from himself and his plea counsel, stating that counsel had advised him only of possible citizenship consequences, not the mandatory nature of deportation stemming from the conviction. The motion judge, who was also the plea judge, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the affidavits not credible, primarily because they were inconsistent with counsel’s statement during the plea colloquy that immigration consequences had been discussed.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the denial following an unpublished affirmance by the Appeals Court. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the motion judge erred by discrediting the affidavits solely based on perceived inconsistency with the plea colloquy, as the affidavit and colloquy statements were not inherently contradictory. The court vacated the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and remanded the case for further proceedings, including the possibility of an evidentiary hearing. View "Commonwealth v. Santana" on Justia Law