Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Bulgarian native Vladimir Vladimirov petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order of removal based on marriage fraud. Much of the government’s evidence came from written reports prepared by immigration officers and other written materials contained in the agency’s files. Vladimirov claimed the BIA’s reliance on such materials denied him due process of law and without the disputed evidence the government failed to make its case. After consideration of the process due in immigration cases, particularly as it applied to the consideration of evidence that might be excluded in other contexts, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error in this case and denied the petition for review. View "Vladimirov v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, married a U.S. citizen and acquired status as a conditional lawful permanent resident. Petitioner and her spouse subsequently filed an I-751 joint petition (“joint petition”) seeking to remove the conditional nature of Petitioner’s residency status. The Immigration and Naturalization Service denied the petition based on a finding of marriage fraud. Petitioner and her spouse later divorced, and Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner then filed another I-751 petition (“waiver petition”) seeking a waiver of the joint petition requirements and arguing that she had entered into her marriage in good faith. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the petition, relying on the previous finding of marriage fraud. An immigration judge (IJ) upheld the denial of the waiver petition and found that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding (1) the IJ did not erroneously review the waiver petition instead of the joint petition; and (2) the BIA did not err in declaring Petitioner statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Cabrera v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who legally entered the United States on a visitor visa, adjusted his status to that of a conditional permanent resident based on his marriage to Nadine Woodley Davis (“Woodley”), a United States citizen. This status terminated upon the denial of Petitioner’s request for a waiver of the requirement that he file a joint petition with Woodley to remove the conditional status. Petitioner was subsequently charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested termination of proceedings, adjustment of status, and a review of the waiver application. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding that Petitioner did not enter into his marriage in good faith but rather for the sole purpose of circumventing immigration laws. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed and refused to remand the proceedings to the IJ given Petitioner’s recent marriage to another United States citizen. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the IJ’s and the BIA’s conclusions that Petitioner’s marriage to Woodley was not entered into in good faith; and (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in deciding to deny Petitioner’s motion to reopen. View "Davis v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was ordered removed in absentia. Petitioner filed a pro se motion to reopen, which the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied. Almost fourteen years after he was ordered removed, Petitioner filed a motion to rescind the in absentia removal order and a motion to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for asylum and related relief. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motions as untimely and numerically barred. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) Liu waived his argument that he exercised the requisite due diligence to warrant equitable tolling; and (2) the BIA and IJ acted within their discretion in determining that Petitioner did not qualify for the changed country conditions exception for filing motions to reopen. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

H-1B visas allow U.S. companies to hire noncitizen workers with specialized skills. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for their issuance. Rubman sent USCIS a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552) seeking “copies of all documents reflecting statistics … about H-1B visa applications” from the last four years. USCIS responded with a single document: a data table that the agency had created to respond to his request. Rubman doubted the table’s accuracy and insisted that USCIS provide the documents he originally asked for: “‘ALL documents reflecting statistics’” about H-1B visa applications, including internal statistical reports and e-mails. CIS refused, insisting that additional records would not be helpful and would “only create additional confusion.” Rubman sued. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of USCIS. The Seventh Circuit reversed. An adequate search is one that was both performed in good faith and reasonably designed to uncover the requested records. USCIS failed to conduct an adequate search as required by law when it unilaterally narrowed Rubman’s request for “all documents” to a single, newly generated statistical table. View "Rubman v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs." on Justia Law

Appellant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States as a previously removed alien. On appeal, Appellant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the underlying order of removal was invalid. The district court refused to dismiss the indictment, ruling that Appellant had not exhausted his administrative remedies and, thus, could not collaterally attack the underlying removal order. Appellant subsequently entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss his indictment, holding that because Appellant did not exhaust his administrative remedies in connection with the underlying removal, he could not collaterally attack that removal in his criminal case. View "United States v. Soto-Mateo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, was ordered deported in 1997. In 2002, Petitioner married a United States citizen. Petitioner’s wife filed a Form I-130 petition on Petitioner’s behalf for an immigrant visa. In 2009, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted the I-130 petition. While the petition was pending, Petitioner moved to reopen his immigration proceedings and sought an adjustment of status based on his marriage. In 2010, Petitioner was arrested on six counts related to the illegal sale of prescription drugs. In 2011, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status and ordered him removed, concluding that the circumstances underlying Petitioner’s pending criminal charges outweighed the evidence favorable to him. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioner appealed. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s purely discretionary decision. View "Mele v. Lynch" on Justia Law

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