Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Fuad Atieh, a Jordanian national, was placed in removal proceedings. Fuad subsequently married Jamileh Khudari, a U.S. citizen. The couple later divorced. Thereafter, Fuad married Raniah Atieh, a U.S. citizen. Two months later, Raniah filed an I-130 petition on Fuad’s behalf. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the I-130 petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the decision, concluding that the Atiehs had failed to prove the bona fides of Fuad’s first marriage. The Atiehs filed a second I-130 petition. USCIS denied relief, and the BIA affirmed. The district court affirmed, concluding that the administrative record adequately supported the denial of I-130 relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA did not err, misconstrue or ignore the evidence, or fail to consider the record in its entirety in concluding that Fuad’s first marriage was fraudulent. View "Atieh v. Riordan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, was served with a Notice to Appear charging him with being removable from the United States for overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. The Notice to Appear explained that Petitioner was required to keep immigration authorities apprised of his current address. After being served with the Notice to Appear, Petitioner moved to a new address without updating his address with immigration officials. The immigration court sent notice of the hearing to Petitioner’s old address. Petitioner did not receive notice of the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings on the basis that he had not received notice of the hearing. The Immigration Judge denied the motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to reopen in absentia removal proceedings on the basis of not having received the statutorily-required notice where Petitioner never apprised the government of his new address. View "Ledesma-Sanchez v. Holder" on Justia Law

An Immigration Judge found that Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was removable because he obtained immigration benefits by fraud or material representation and because he entered the United States without valid documentation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that equitable estoppel should be applied to terminate proceedings against him due to government misconduct. The First Circuit dismissed the petition, holding that because Petitioner did not raise his equitable estoppel claim before the BIA, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the BIA, and thus, this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the claim. View "Batres v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Honduran national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge denied all of Petitioner’s claims for relief and ordered him removed to Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the record was consistent with the agency’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish past persecution and that Petitioner’s professed fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, and therefore, Petitioner’s asylum claim and claim for withholding of removal were properly denied; and (2) Petitioner’s claim for protection under CAT was waived. View "Villafranca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s applications based on an adverse credibility finding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) ample evidence supported the IJ’s credibility finding, and the adverse credibility determination supported the resulting denial of Petitioner’s removal and CAT claims; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish any violation of his right to due process. View "Cuatzo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was placed in removal proceedings in 1997. Petitioner filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal. In 1998, an immigration judge denied in part the applications based on adverse credibility findings. Petitioner was not removed, however, and remained in the United States. In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal proceedings, arguing that his late motion should not be barred by the ninety-day statutory limit because of evidence demonstrating changed country conditions in China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen, concluding that the motion did not meet the exception to the time bar for relief based on changed circumstances in Petitioner's country of nationality. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings was time-barred. View "Wang v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala who entered the United States unlawfully, requested asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure. The immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner voluntary departure but held that he failed to meet his burden of showing that he was entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding (1) new case law did not require a remand for reconsideration in light of the “clarification of the BIA’s position on the social visibility requirement of the asylum statute; (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to establish a protected ground for asylum because Petitioner’s proposed social group was not a legally cognizable particular social group; and (3) the BIA did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal of the denial of his application for withholding of removal. View "Paiz-Morales v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Uganda, was served with a notice to appear in immigration removal proceedings. Petitioner petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Primarily on the basis of four incidents, Petitioner testified that he feared he would be detained or killed if forced to return to Uganda. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and, thus, denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that the discrepancies in portions of Petitioner’s testimony provided specific cogent reasons for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The First Circuit vacated the BIA’s order, holding that the record did not support two of the purported inconsistencies that the BIA considered critical in discrediting Petitioner’s account. Remanded. View "Mboowa v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Kenyan national, married a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 visa petition seeking to classify Petitioner as a spouse of a U.S. citizen. Thereafter, Petitioner applied for adjustment of his immigration status. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the I-130 petition on the ground of marriage fraud. Removal proceedings were subsequently brought against Petitioner. Petitioner sought relief from removal under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The USCIS approved Petitioner’s VAWA petition. Petitioner then asked the immigration judge (IJ) to adjust his immigration status. The IJ denied the requested relief and ordered Petitioner removed, finding that, although Petitioner was statutorily eligible for adjustment of status based on his approved VAWA petition, he had engaged in marriage fraud. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. While Petitioner’s petition for judicial review was pending, the USCIS revoked Petitioner’s VAWA petition. At issue before the First Circuit was whether it could consider the USCIS’s revocation of the VAWA petition, an action that took place outside the confines of the administrative record. The Court concluded that it could. Remanded to the BIA to determine whether the revocation of the VAWA was lawfully accomplished, and if, so, whether the BIA decision is now moot. View "Manguriu v. Holder" on Justia Law

After his arrest on state charges, Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner filed an adjustment of statute application and also applied for a waiver, claiming hardship to his lawfully admitted parents and citizen wife and step-daughter. An immigration judge (IJ) concluded that a favorable exercise of discretion was warranted and granted Petitioner’s waiver and adjustment of status applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) disagreed with the IJ, concluding that Petitioner was not entitled to a discretionary waiver. Petitioner did not seek review of that decision. Petitioner later petitioned the BIA to reopen the proceedings based on new evidence. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. View "Mazariegos v. Holder" on Justia Law