Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioner was convicted of a felony requiring his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an order that Petitioner be removed. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that because Padilla v. Kentucky described deportation as a “penalty,” his removal violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or related constitutional protections unless a court conducted an individual assessment to determine whether his order of removal was a proportional punishment relative to his underlying criminal conviction. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Padilla has not signaled a break from long-settled law that removal operates simply as “a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want,” not as a punishment within the meaning of the Constitution intended to acutely sanction a noncitizen for his underlying criminal conviction. View "Hinds v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner unlawfully entered the United States, was detained at the Arizona border, and failed to attend his deportation hearing. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered Appellant to be removed from the country. Petitioner asked an IJ to reopen the removal proceedings, arguing that he never received notice that his removal hearing had been scheduled. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA’s decision, holding that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing Petitioner’s motion, and the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ based on that incorrect legal principle. Remanded. View "Renaut v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, twenty-six states, filed suit challenging the government's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The district court temporarily enjoined the implementation program and the government appealed, moving for a stay of the injunction. The court concluded that the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the states lack standing. In this case, at least one state - Texas - is likely to satisfy all three requirements of Article III standing. Further, the government has not made a strong showing that the interests that the states seek to protect fall outside the zone of interests of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1252; that judicial review is precluded in this case; that DAPA does not require notice and comment; and that the remaining factors also favor the states. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction. View "State of Texas v. United States" on Justia Law