Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Jose Manuel Rodriguez-Avalos appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision. Rodriguez was a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled. In January 2011, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspection revealed that Rodriguez was one of fourteen employees of an Omaha, Nebraska grocery store against whom identity-theft complaints had been filed with the Federal Trade Commission. A DHS agent interviewed Rodriguez, who admitted his identity to the DHS agent and admitted that he had no documentation allowing him to enter or work in the United States. Rodriguez was then placed under arrest for administrative immigration violations. Rodriguez was subsequently indicted and charged with, inter alia, falsely and willfully representing himself to be a United States citizen. The BIA dismissed his appeal after an Immigration Judge’s denied of his application for relief from removal. The BIA held that the prison sentence Rodriguez served following his conviction for falsely and willfully representing himself as a United States citizen barred him from demonstrating the “good moral character” necessary to be statutorily eligible for relief from removal. Finding no reversible error in the BIA's decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Rodriguez-Avalos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal entry, a misdemeanor offense. After Petitioner had served his 181-day sentence and was released, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his three citizen children, especially his ten-year-old autistic son. The immigration judge (IJ) dismissed Petitioner’s application, concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) precludes an alien from establishing good moral character when his offense resulted in 180 days or more of confinement. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that the applicability of section 1101(f)(&) does not depend upon the type of offense, but rather, the length of incarceration. The Fourth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) this was not one of those “exceptionally rare” instances in which the literal application of a Congressional enactment produces truly absurd results; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim that he was not precluded from establishing good moral character. View "Tiscareno-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Benjamin Rodas-Orellana entered the United States without inspection to escape gang recruitment in El Salvador. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeal's (BIA) denied petitioner's application because he failed to show a well-founded fear of persecution on account of membership in a particular social group. The proposed group, "Salvadorans who resisted gang recruitment" lacked "social visibility" and therefore did not constitute a "particular social group." After the BIA issued its final order in this case, it issued decisions in two other cases that modified the social visibility requirement to be one of "social distinction." In light of these decisions, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the BIA denied. In his petition to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, petitioner contested both the final order of removal by the BIA and the Board's denial of his motion to reconsider. Finding no reversible error after review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the BIA. View "Rodas-Orellana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Putu Indrawati appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order that affirmed an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision that she was barred from adjustment status because she knowingly filed a frivolous asylum application. Petitioner was attacked in her native Indonesia while visiting family on break from college in the US. The incident convinced petitioner to apply for asylum in the US. Her closest friend was successful in gaining asylum in the US, and petitioner relied on her friend's advice to petition for asylum too. Though she should read and write in English, petitioner relied on third parties to complete her application. Petitioner signed blank forms and gave them to the third parties to present her application on her behalf. On appeal, petitioner argued: (1) the IJ denied her a sufficient opportunity to account for any discrepancies or implausible aspects of her claim; (2) the IJ's reliance on three documents prepared for her violated her right to due process; and (3) the BIA's decision reflected a lack of reasoned consideration. Upon review of the BIA's decision, the Eleventh Circuit concluded it was without jurisdiction to consider the first two arguments petitioner made on appeal. As to the third, the Court concluded petitioner's claim was without merit. View "Indrawati v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

When the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Dominican national, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for voluntary departure. While the immigration proceedings were pending, Petitioner was arrested and charged with offenses arising from a domestic disturbance. One of the police officers who arrested Petitioner prepared a report documenting the incident. In the immigration course, the police report was introduced into evidence. The immigration judge (IJ) found that, although the criminal charges against Petitioner were still pending in state court, the police report reliably disclosed a disturbing set of negative factors that outweighed any positive factors. The IJ then denied voluntary departure. While Petitioner’s appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was pending, the criminal charges were dismissed. The BIA remanded the matter. The IJ again denied relief, concluding that reliance on the police report was appropriate under the circumstances. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim that the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions reflected an abuse of discretion; and (2) neither the IJ nor the BIA committed any legal error by considering the police report as a negative factor weighing against discretionary relief. View "Arias-Minaya v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The lead petitioner asserted that he was detained, beat, and threatened by Armenian military police after he was seen talking to a reporter following a personal confrontation with the city’s military police chief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied all relief. A panel of the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioners’ petition for review in part as to the asylum and withholding claims, holding (1) the BIA erred by failing to consider whether the lead petitioner was harmed on account of an imputed political opinion or his imputed whistleblowing; and (2) substantial evidence supported the denial of Petitioners’ claims based on actual political opinion, as well as the denial of Petitioners’ claims under the CAT. Remanded. View "Khudaverdyan v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2008, removal proceedings were commenced against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national. Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for discretionary relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) in the form of special rule cancellation of removal or for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s NACARA claim, concluding (1) special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA was not an appropriate exercise of discretion; and (2) Petitioner's remaining claims were without merit. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for judicial review for want of jurisdiction, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of special rule cancellation of removal; and (2) Petitioner’s remaining claims of error were unexhausted and, thus, unsuitable for judicial review. View "Ramirez-Matias v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings to remove petitioner Gustavo Mena-Flores from the United States on the ground that he was in the country illegally. Petitioner conceded removability, but applied to adjust his status to permanent residency based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The immigration judge eventually denied the request, stating that petitioner was ineligible for permanent residency because of a “reasonable belief” that he had participated in drug trafficking. On appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding that the immigration judge had sufficient evidence to find a reason to believe that petitioner had participated in drug trafficking. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review the Board’s denial of his request for adjustment in status. While the petition was pending, the Board denied petitioner's subsequent motions to reopen the case and reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen. Petitioner then filed petitions seeking review of these denials. After review, the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's petitions, finding no reversible error in the Board's decisions. View "Mena-Flores v. Holder" on Justia Law

Federal authorities instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Chinese national. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and an immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of removal in absentia. Almost a decade later, Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner sought judicial review, which was interrupted by the First Circuit’s remand of the case upon a motion by the government for consideration of whether Petitioner qualified for relief based on changed circumstances in his homeland. The BIA concluded that Petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating a material change in China’s country conditions since he was ordered removed. Petitioner then filed a new petition for judicial review. The First Circuit denied the petitions for review, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to an exception to the filing deadline due to lack of notice; (2) the IJ did not abuse her discretion in failing to apply equitable tolling; and (3) the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine Petitioner’s claim that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding. View "Wan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Venezuela and citizen of Cuba, appealed the dismissal of his complaint challenging the USCIS's determination that he was statutorily ineligible to adjust status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), Pub. L. No. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161. The court concluded that any arguments plaintiff may have had regarding the district judge's dismissal of his request for mandamus relief for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted and any claims under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA), 28 U.S.C. 2201, has been abandoned by plaintiff's failure to raise them on appeal. Because the BIA lacked authority to review the USCIS CAA-eligibility determination, plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies prior to commencing his proceedings before the IJ. Therefore, the district judge erred when he determined that plaintiff's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies deprived him of jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint. The court reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, remanding for further proceedings.View "Perez v. USCIS" on Justia Law