Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Manuel Antonio Suquilanda was convicted of unlawfully reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenged his conviction on two grounds: first, that the initial removal proceedings were invalid because the Notice to Appear (NTA) he received lacked the place of hearing and address-of-filing information, thus stripping the Immigration Court of jurisdiction; and second, that § 1326 is unconstitutional as it discriminates against Latin Americans, violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Suquilanda’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The court held that any defect in the NTA did not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction, referencing the Second Circuit’s precedent in Banegas Gomez v. Barr. The court also concluded that the address-of-filing requirement was a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule. On the constitutional challenge, the court found that while the 1929 Act had discriminatory intent, Suquilanda failed to show that the 1952 reenactment of § 1326 was motivated by racial animus.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the missing hearing information in the NTA was cured by a subsequent notice, and the address-of-filing requirement was non-jurisdictional. On the constitutional issue, the court applied the Arlington Heights framework and found that Suquilanda did not demonstrate that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the 1952 enactment of § 1326. Consequently, the court concluded that § 1326 does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. View "United States v. Suquilanda" on Justia Law

Bessy Orbelina Castellanos-Ventura, a citizen of Honduras, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in the United States. She claimed past persecution due to her membership in a social group of Honduran women, citing physical and sexual abuse by family members and a local criminal. She did not report the abuse to authorities, believing they would not help her.The Immigration Judge (IJ) assumed without deciding that Castellanos-Ventura's social group was cognizable and that she suffered persecution. However, the IJ denied her application, finding she failed to show that the Honduran government was "unable or unwilling to control" her persecutors. The IJ noted her failure to report the abuse and pointed to her mother's success in obtaining a restraining order as evidence of government action. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, adopting the same reasoning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the agency incorrectly applied the "unable or unwilling to control" standard. It noted the agency failed to consider whether it would have been futile or dangerous for Castellanos-Ventura, as an abused child, to seek protection. Additionally, the agency did not evaluate significant evidence indicating the Honduran government's inability to protect women and children from violence. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Castellanos-Ventura v. Garland" on Justia Law

Christian Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was brought to the United States by his mother at the age of two to escape domestic violence from his father. Lopez lived in the U.S. without lawful status for thirteen years before obtaining T-5 nonimmigrant status in 2013. In 2017, he inadvertently allowed his T-5 status to expire. In 2019, Lopez was arrested and later convicted of multiple offenses, including four counts of petit larceny under the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) § 8.10.040. Following his release from prison, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him.An immigration judge (IJ) found Lopez removable for committing crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) and denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ determined that Lopez's asylum application was untimely and that he failed to demonstrate a nexus between his fear of future harm and any protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that Lopez's municipal convictions involved CIMTs and that he did not qualify for an exception to the asylum filing deadline.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Lopez's petition for review. The court held that Lopez's petit larceny convictions under RMC § 8.10.040 are CIMTs, making him removable. The court also concluded that the BIA's interpretation of the statute regarding CIMTs was entitled to respect under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Additionally, the court found that the lack of availability of a pardon for a conviction does not render the conviction an improper basis for removal. Finally, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal, as Lopez did not demonstrate that he would face future persecution in Mexico based on his identity as his mother's son. View "LOPEZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Nayanaben Patel, entered the United States in March 2000 under unclear circumstances. She applied for adjustment of status based on her husband's legal status but lied about her manner of entry. She later admitted to lying but provided conflicting testimonies. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her application for adjustment of status and ordered her removal to India, citing factual inconsistencies. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The IJ's decision was discretionary and protected by statute from judicial review. The petitioner did not raise any colorable constitutional claims that would allow for judicial review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the petitioner's multiple contradictory statements and lack of credible evidence regarding her manner of entry.The Sixth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary decision under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), which bars judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under sections 1182(i) and 1255. The court also found that the petitioner did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias, and that her judicial bias claim was not a constitutional issue but rather a factual dispute.The court denied the petition for review, emphasizing that the IJ's decision was within his discretion and supported by the evidence. The court also noted a significant error in the IJ's understanding of the difference between a visa and an I-94 form but concluded that this error did not affect the overall decision. View "Patel v. Garland" on Justia Law

Four aliens who were denied asylum and an organization assisting them filed FOIA requests for copies of the aliens’ Assessments to Refer and associated documents. USCIS released the factual portions of the Assessments but withheld portions containing analysis by the asylum officers, including opinions, deliberations, and recommendations regarding each applicant’s eligibility for asylum. The plaintiffs sued to obtain the full Assessments.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the government. It held that the deliberative-process privilege covers the requested Assessments and that USCIS had adequately shown that releasing the withheld portions would foreseeably harm USCIS’s interest in receiving candid recommendations from its asylum officers. After the plaintiffs appealed, the case was remanded for further consideration in light of a new decision, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI. On remand, USCIS submitted a supplemental declaration elaborating on the agency’s assessment of foreseeable harm, and the district court again granted summary judgment to DHS.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the deliberative-process privilege applies to the four requested Assessments and that DHS adequately showed that disclosure of their analysis portions would foreseeably harm interests the privilege protects. The court found that the supplemental declaration provided by USCIS’s Chief FOIA Officer sufficiently demonstrated foreseeable harm by explaining the sensitive nature of asylum adjudications and the specific concern about facilitating asylum fraud. The court affirmed the summary judgment for DHS. View "Emuwa v. DHS" on Justia Law

A mother filed for sole custody of her two daughters, alleging the father, who resides in Guatemala, had abused, neglected, and abandoned the children. The Delaware County Court of Common Pleas granted her sole custody but denied her request for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings, which are necessary for the children to seek SIJ status with federal immigration authorities. The court found insufficient evidence of abuse, neglect, or abandonment under Pennsylvania law and questioned whether it was in the children's best interest to issue an SIJ order.The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which affirmed the lower court's decision. The Superior Court held that SIJ determinations could only be made in dependency proceedings, not in custody proceedings where one parent is awarded sole custody.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the case and reversed the Superior Court's decision. The Court clarified that under federal SIJ law, a child involved in custody proceedings resulting in sole custody being awarded to a parent in the United States can seek SIJ determinations in that context. The Court held that the Superior Court erred in limiting SIJ determinations to dependency proceedings and that the record supported the children's entitlement to predicate SIJ determinations.The Supreme Court directed the custody court to enter orders consistent with its opinion, including findings that reunification with the father is not viable due to abandonment and neglect, and that it is not in the children's best interest to return to Guatemala. The case was remanded to the custody court for entry of these orders. View "Velasquez v. Miranda" on Justia Law

Oswaldo Favio Dominguez Ojeda, a native and citizen of Peru, faced reinstatement of a prior removal order by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2023. He expressed fear of returning to Peru, citing multiple incidents of harm and threats from members of the political group Peru Libre. An asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear screening interview but determined that Dominguez Ojeda did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. Dominguez Ojeda sought review of this negative determination.The matter was referred to an Immigration Judge (IJ) for a reasonable fear review hearing. During this hearing, Dominguez Ojeda attempted to introduce new evidence, including claims of being raped by Peru Libre members and country conditions reports. The IJ refused to consider this new evidence, mistakenly believing that he lacked the discretion to review evidence not initially presented to the asylum officer. The IJ cited the case Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland, which allows an IJ to exercise discretion in considering new evidence, but still concluded that he could not review the new evidence. Consequently, the IJ upheld the asylum officer's negative reasonable fear determination.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the IJ committed legal error by failing to exercise discretion regarding the consideration of new evidence. The court clarified that while an IJ is not required to consider new evidence at a reasonable fear hearing, the IJ must exercise discretion in deciding whether to accept or reject such evidence. The Ninth Circuit granted Dominguez Ojeda’s petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the IJ to properly exercise discretion in considering the new evidence. View "OJEDA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

A man who has lived in the United States for thirty years, married to a U.S. citizen and father to U.S. citizens, has been attempting to adjust his immigration status for seventeen years. His third application was denied in 2021 due to the use of an incorrect birthdate, which was deemed to constitute fraud. The man sought review in district court, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. He then appealed this decision.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the case, stating that decisions regarding the adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility are within the discretion of USCIS and are not subject to judicial review. The court cited 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and § 1182(i)(2), which preclude judicial review of such discretionary decisions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility, regardless of whether the judgment is made in removal proceedings. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland, which interpreted the statute to broadly preclude judicial review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under § 1255. The court acknowledged the potential for governmental errors but concluded that the statutory language clearly barred judicial review in this context. View "Momin v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

Hussein Ahmed Mouns, a native of Ethiopia and citizen of Yemen, has been in the United States since 1996. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 1997, which were denied by an immigration judge in 1999 and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 2002. Mouns filed motions to reopen his proceedings in 2003 and 2004 to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which were denied by the BIA in 2003 and 2005. In 2020, Mouns filed a third motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Yemen, citing the ongoing civil war and potential persecution due to his religion and imputed political opinion.The BIA denied Mouns’s 2020 motion to reopen, applying the stringent standard from In re Coelho, which requires the movant to show that the new evidence would likely change the result of the case. Mouns requested reconsideration, arguing that the BIA should have used the less burdensome "reasonable likelihood" standard from In re L-O-G-. The BIA denied reconsideration, reaffirming the use of the Coelho standard without addressing the L-O-G- standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court found that the BIA abused its discretion by not following its own precedents, which limit the Coelho standard to cases with special, adverse considerations. The court noted that the BIA did not identify any such considerations in Mouns’s case and should have applied the "reasonable likelihood" standard. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit granted Mouns’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision denying reconsideration, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mouns v. Garland" on Justia Law

Gary Lall, born in Trinidad and Tobago, applied for a Certificate of Citizenship in 1990 through his adoptive parents, who were naturalized U.S. citizens. The government erroneously approved his application after he turned eighteen, issuing a certificate stating he "became a citizen." However, Lall had not met the statutory requirements for citizenship. The error was discovered shortly after issuance, but the government waited twenty-one years to cancel the certificate. Lall, incarcerated at the time, filed a declaratory judgment action seeking recognition of his citizenship.The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed Lall's declaratory judgment action, finding he never obtained citizenship. Concurrently, the government initiated removal proceedings, and an Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered Lall's removal, rejecting his claim to citizenship. Lall appealed both the District Court's dismissal and the IJ's removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Lall never satisfied the statutory requirements for citizenship under the relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as they existed in 1991. The court emphasized that a Certificate of Citizenship is only prima facie evidence of citizenship and does not confer citizenship if statutory requirements are unmet. The court also ruled that equitable estoppel could not be used to confer citizenship, as courts lack the power to grant citizenship contrary to statutory requirements. Consequently, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Lall's declaratory judgment action and denied his petition for review of the IJ's removal order. View "Lall v. USICE" on Justia Law