Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Four Iranian nationals, who had previously completed mandatory military service in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), were denied visas to enter the United States. Their family members, three U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident, filed a suit against the President and several federal officials responsible for visa applications. They alleged that the defendants unlawfully deprived visa applicants the opportunity to establish eligibility for terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) exemptions, violating their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which bars judicial review of consular decisions. The Plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applied, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of bad faith that could overcome this doctrine. The court also held that the applicants were not entitled to any more explanation for their visa denials than the citation to the section of the law on which the denial was based. View "Pak v. Biden" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the petitioner, Jose Lince Lopez-Benitez, a native of El Salvador, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision which upheld an Immigration Judge's denial of his asylum request, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lopez had entered the United States illegally in 2013 and was subjected to extortion by the gang MS-13 in El Salvador, but he had never been physically harmed. He argued that his persecution was due to his membership in two particular social groups: the family of his father, who was legally residing in the U.S., and "Salvadoran males without male protection."The Court denied Lopez's petition, finding that he had failed to demonstrate a central reason for his persecution was his membership in a protected social group, which is a requirement for asylum or withholding of removal. The Court highlighted that while Lopez testified once that his father's presence in the U.S. was the reason why MS-13 targeted him, he provided no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, no other members of his father's family in El Salvador were targeted by MS-13. The Court concluded that the evidence most supported a finding that the only central reason that Lopez was targeted was because MS-13 extorted indiscriminately.Additionally, the Court found that Lopez had forfeited his CAT claim by not adequately raising it in his brief to the Board, meaning he had failed to exhaust administrative remedies for this claim, thus barring the Court from reviewing it. View "Lopez-Benitez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Robert Franklyn Lodge, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was brought to the United States by his father, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen. After Lodge was convicted of aggravated felonies, the Department of Homeland Security sought to remove him. Lodge argued that he had derived citizenship from his father under a statute that has been repealed. The immigration judge ordered Lodge removed to Jamaica, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Lodge argued that the former statute discriminated against unmarried fathers based on sex and against black children based on race, and that he should have been granted citizenship if the statute were free of these constitutional defects. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Lodge's petition for review, concluding that he lacked standing to raise these constitutional challenges. The court found that Lodge's injury (removal from the U.S. due to non-citizenship) was not traceable to the sex classification in the statute, because even under a sex-neutral version of the statute, Lodge would not have derived citizenship from his father, because his mother's maternity was established. The court did not address the merits of Lodge's arguments about race and sex discrimination or whether he had third-party standing to assert his father's right to equal protection. Lodge's motion to transfer was denied as moot. View "Lodge v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Ricardo Jose Pineda-Maldonado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied his application for asylum and claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He entered the United States without inspection in 2016, following threats and physical harm from "cattle thieves" who had previously murdered his father over a gambling-related financial debt. The cattle thieves subsequently targeted Pineda-Maldonado and his brother for the father's debt and also out of fear that they would seek reprisals for their father's murder. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that the BIA's denial of Pineda-Maldonado's claims was not supported by substantial evidence and failed to adequately assess the evidence presented. The court found that the BIA had failed to consider whether the threats Pineda-Maldonado received constituted past or potential future torture, and also failed to find the required nexus between the persecution Pineda-Maldonado experienced and his family status. The court granted the petition, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Pineda-Maldonado v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, residents of the Waples Mobile Home Park in Fairfax, Virginia, challenged the park's policy that required all adult tenants to provide proof of their legal status in the United States in order to renew their leases. The plaintiffs, four Latino families, argued that this policy violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) because it disproportionately ousted Latinos from the park. The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the park, reasoning that the policy was necessary to avoid criminal liability under a federal statute prohibiting the harboring of undocumented immigrants.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The court of appeals found that the district court had misunderstood the federal anti-harboring statute. The court of appeals noted that the statute requires more than simply entering into a lease agreement with an undocumented immigrant to be in violation. Rather, a person must knowingly or recklessly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented immigrants from detection. The court of appeals concluded that the park's policy of verifying tenants' legal status did not serve the park's stated interest of avoiding liability under the anti-harboring statute. Consequently, the park had not met its burden at the second step of the three-step burden-shifting framework established for disparate-impact claims under the FHA. As such, the court of appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for the park and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the defendant, José Gambino-Ruiz, was convicted and sentenced for illegal re-entry into the U.S. under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gambino-Ruiz appealed his conviction, arguing that the removal order, which was the basis for his charge, was improper under the Immigration and Nationality Act. He also contested his sentence, claiming that the district judge considered impermissible factors in denying a downward sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.The Court ruled that Gambino-Ruiz was properly subject to expedited removal under § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) and therefore did not violate his due process rights when he was removed via expedited proceedings in 2013. He was properly convicted of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Furthermore, the Court affirmed his sentence, ruling that Gambino-Ruiz did not demonstrate that his was a rare circumstance where the adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is due after the defendant has proceeded to trial.The facts of the case are as follows: Gambino-Ruiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. illegally several times. Each time, he was apprehended by border patrol agents and subsequently deported through expedited removal proceedings. In 2020, he was again found in the U.S. illegally and was charged with illegal re-entry of a removed alien. His motions to dismiss the charges and to suppress his admissions to the border patrol agents were denied, leading to a trial where he was found guilty. At sentencing, Gambino-Ruiz's request for a downward sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility was denied, leading to his appeal. View "USA V. GAMBINO-RUIZ" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review filed by Kingsley Owusu, who was seeking asylum and withholding of removal from the United States. Owusu, originally from Ghana, claimed that he had suffered three violent incidents in his home country due to his political affiliations, leading him to fear future persecution. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals both found that Owusu had failed to demonstrate that the Ghanaian government was unable or unwilling to address the harm he faced from private actors, that his past incidents did not constitute persecution, that he could not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that he could avoid persecution by relocating within Ghana. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that for Owusu to be eligible for asylum or withholding, he must show state action, either by demonstrating that his persecutor is a state actor or that the Ghanaian government was unable to protect him. The court found that Owusu failed to meet this burden, as he presented no compelling evidence that the Ghanaian police would either persecute him or fail to protect him from persecution. As such, the court denied Owusu's petition for review. View "Owusu v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

In a case brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, residents of the Waples Mobile Home Park in Fairfax, Virginia, challenged the Park's policy requiring all adult tenants to provide proof of their legal status in the United States in order to renew their leases. The plaintiffs, noncitizen Latino families, argued that this policy disproportionately ousted Latinos from the Park and therefore violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the Park, reasoning that the policy was necessary to avoid criminal liability under a federal statute prohibiting the harboring of undocumented immigrants.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The court determined that the anti-harboring statute did not plausibly put the Park at risk for prosecution simply for leasing to families with undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, the court found that the Park's policy did not serve a valid interest in any realistic way to avoid liability under the anti-harboring statute. Therefore, the Park did not meet its burden at the second step of the three-step burden-shifting framework established for disparate-impact claims in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Given these findings, the Court of Appeals did not need to reach the third step to determine whether a less discriminatory alternative was available. As such, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Park and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Reyes v. Waples Mobile Home Park Limited Partnership" on Justia Law

Sergio Mencia-Medina, a native and citizen of Honduras who entered the United States as a child with his mother, petitioned for a review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Mencia-Medina was charged as removable due to his presence in the country without admission, and his request for a form of cancellation of removal available to children who have been battered by lawful permanent resident parents was denied by the BIA. Mencia-Medina's record showed contacts with law enforcement both as a juvenile and as an adult, which the BIA decided outweighed the favorable factors in his record.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Mencia-Medina's petition for review. The court found that the BIA properly applied the law and exercised its discretion in denying a favorable exercise of discretion to Mencia-Medina. The court ruled that even if an individual meets the statutory criteria for eligibility for cancellation of removal, the Attorney General's decision to grant or deny relief is discretionary. The court also concluded that the BIA did not make an error by citing and applying the factors applicable to cases concerning cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents. The petitioner's argument that the BIA's decision was unreasoned and internally inconsistent was also rejected by the court. View "Mencia-Medina v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, a native and citizen of Honduras, Kelmi Velasquez-Castillo, appealed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which denied his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Velasquez-Castillo, who had been categorized as an unaccompanied minor after his second entry to the U.S., argued that his removal would violate the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and that new evidence regarding his sexual orientation was relevant to his eligibility for asylum. The BIA had upheld the Immigration Judge's decision that Velasquez-Castillo failed to show that the new evidence was not available at the time of the previous hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the BIA erred in denying the motion to reopen without resolving the issue of the statutory provisions relating to an unaccompanied minor, and that the BIA failed to consider whether there was new and previously unavailable evidence in support of asylum eligibility. The Court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded the case for the BIA to interpret the TVPRA's relevant provisions in the first instance and to consider whether the new evidence met the requirements for reopening the case. View "Velasquez-Castillo v. Garland" on Justia Law