Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

The H-2B visa program allows U.S. employers to seek admission of foreign workers to perform temporary unskilled non-agricultural work by demonstrating that the employment of foreign workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of U.S. workers. 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii), 1182 (a)(5)(A)(i)(I)-(II). The employer must obtain certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) that: qualified workers are not available at the “prevailing wage” in the U.S. to perform the employment in question, and the aliens’ employment will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers. DOL has often changed its method for calculating prevailing wages without giving notice or an opportunity to comment and without explanation. Opponents challenged 20 C.F.R. 655.10(f) and the 2009 Wage Guidance, which authorized use of privately-funded surveys to set the prevailing wage for certain occupations. A district court ruled in favor of the opponents. Following notice and comment, DOL announced the 2011 Wage Rule, but has continued to use the 2009 Guidance, having postponed the 2011 Rule’s effective date because it was subject to congressional appropriations riders precluding its implementation. The district court dismissed a challenge. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the case was ripe and that the 2009 Guidance was arbitrary and violated the APA.View "Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajad v. Perez" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indonesian citizen, submitted an application for asylum, alleging that she experienced persecution as an Indonesian Christian. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and granted her request for voluntary departure, concluding that Petitioner’s account did not rise to the level of past persecution, nor did Petitioner demonstrate that she would be persecuted if she returned to Indonesia. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and vacated the order of removal, holding that the IJ’s and BIA’s legal conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Remanded to the BIA to make a well-reasoned determination as to Petitioner’s eligibility for asylum.View "Panoto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, married a United States citizen and obtained permanent resident status on a conditional basis. After Petitioner and his wife divorced, Petitioner applied for a waiver of the joint petition requirement under section 216(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Immigration Judge (IJ) reviewed and denied the application, concluding that Petitioner’s marriage was not entered into in good faith, as required for the waiver. The IJ granted Petitioner thirty days for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal and extended the time within which Petitioner could voluntarily depart. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen based on a pending I-130 visa petition filed by his daughter, who was a United States citizen. The BIA denied the motion, finding that Petitioner was not eligible to adjust his status because he failed to voluntarily depart within the time frame established by the IJ and the BIA. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for the relief he sought in the motion to reopen; and (2) the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "Taveras-Duran v. Holder" on Justia Law