Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Ramirez-Coria illegally entered the United States in 1995. He was placed in removal proceedings in April 2009, and conceded removability at his initial hearing. At a second hearing in May 2009, Ramirez-Coria requested a continuance in order to complete his application for cancellation of removal (Form EOIR-42B). The instructions on Form EOIR-42B directed Ramirez-Coria to: (1) attend an appointment with a nearby immigration Application Support Center (ASC) to provide biometric information; (2) obtain a biometrics confirmation notice from the ASC and bring it to his hearing as evidence he had provided his biometrics; and (3) file the completed Form EOIR-42B application and all supporting documentation with the Immigration Court within the time period directed by the IJ. Because Ramirez-Coria had not included the biometric information with his application, the IJ rescheduled his hearing to October 2010, eighteen months away. The IJ later rescheduled the hearing to January 2012, but shortly before the hearing Ramirez-Coria’s counsel moved to withdraw, stating his client had “lost interest in his own case.” New counsel entered an appearance, and the hearing was rescheduled for March 2, 2012. Ramirez-Coria submitted his supporting documentation for the application two days before the March hearing, but without the biometric information. At the hearing, counsel told the IJ that Ramirez-Coria had gone to an ASC the day before and provided his fingerprints. Officials at ASC would not take Ramirez-Coria’s fingerprints without any identification or birth certificate, and counsel stated that Ramirez-Coria had lacked any form of identification for the past three years until the day before the hearing. The government stated that DHS had no record that Ramirez-Coria had provided his fingerprints. Counsel did not dispute the IJ’s observation that the DHS obviously had not had time to complete its required investigation. The IJ also noted that all of Ramirez-Coria’s supporting documentation for the application was untimely because the Immigration Court Practice Manual requires all filings to be submitted at least fifteen days in advance of the hearing. Counsel stated her office had been diligent in contacting Ramirez-Coria, but he had been working a lot and it had been difficult to get the documentation. The IJ determined that Ramirez-Coria’s application for cancellation of removal should have been deemed abandoned and concluded that he had not shown good cause for failing to complete the biometric requirement in over two years, nor had his counsel ever informed the IJ that he was having any problem obtaining his fingerprints. The IJ dismissed his application, but granted Ramirez-Coria voluntary departure. Ramirez-Coria appealed to the BIA, which concluded the IJ properly deemed his cancellation-of-removal application abandoned, and it dismissed his appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit denied Ramirez-Coria's petition. View "Ramirez-Coria v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. However, the IJ committed a clear error of fact in its factfinding, and this erroneous finding was recited in the BIA’s order denying Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings, holding that, in light of principles of exhaustion, it was for the BIA to address in the first instance Petitioner’s arguments that the error affected the BIA’s ruling both as to whether he had a well-founded fear of future persecution and as to whether there was a nexus between the persecution and a protected ground. View "Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States on a tourist visa and later conceded removability. Petitioner sought relief, including withholding of removal, claiming that she had a problem in Guatemala with a group of people known as guerillas. An immigration judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution, and therefore, Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal, where the BIA’s determination that Petitioner had not suffered past persecution was not erroneous, and substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner had not established a likelihood of future persecution. View "Bedoya Lopez de Zea v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2011. Petitioner married a United States citizen in 2004, at which point he was granted conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner and his wife did not seek to alter Petitioner’s status so it would no longer be conditional by the deadline, and, after his marriage ended, Petitioner filed for a hardship waiver. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied Petitioner’s waiver request, and Petitioner was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings. Petitioner renewed his waiver request, which an Immigration Judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that Petitioner did not make a showing that he entered into his marriage in good faith. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Board’s finding on the issue of whether Petitioner’s marriage was entered into in good faith was supported by substantial evidence on the record. View "Lamim v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming that he left for the United States because he feared a gang would kill him. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed summarily. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the IJ’s factual finding that Petitioner failed to establish a viable nexus between the persecution he identified and the particular social group to which he claimed to belong - abandoned Guatemalan children lacking protection from gang violence. View "Guerra-Marchorro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala and an indigenous Mayan Quiche, entered the United States without inspection. After Petitioner was charged with removability, Petitioner filed requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, arguing that he and his Mayan Quiche community had been attacked by the Guatemalan military on account of their race and ethnicity and that he would suffer serious harm if returned to Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s requests for relief and ordered him removed, concluding that Petitioner did not qualify for asylum because he had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ’s decision and remanded, holding that the BIA’s and IJ’s determinations that Petitioner did not demonstrate past persecution on account of a protected ground were not supported by substantial evidence. View "Ordonez-Quino v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner filed an application for adjustment of immigration status. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application on the basis of numerous child abuse/neglect reports, as well as a criminal charge, and ordered Petitioner removed to the Dominican Republic. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s appeal, finding that the IJ’s decision was supported in the record and that the IJ had fully considered any offsetting favorable factors. Petitioner appealed to the First Circuit. The First Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner did not raise colorable claims premised on constitutional claims or questions of law. View "Jaquez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, was charged with being unlawfully present in the United States. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for withholding of removal and other forms of relief, claiming that his family had suffered past persecution and feared future persecution because of threats made by his daughter’s former boyfriend. An immigration judge (IJ) denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to avoid removal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that a lack of nexus between the former boyfriend’s conduct and a protected ground was fatal to Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim. View "Moura v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China then still in China, married an American citizen. Two years later, Petitioner entered the United States and was granted conditional permanent resident status on the basis of her marriage. Petitioner and her husband had filed a joint petition to remove the conditions on Petitioner’s residency, but the joint petition was denied after the couple’s divorce. Petitioner subsequently sought a waiver of the joint petition requirement, arguing that she had entered into the marriage in good faith. The waiver was denied. Petitioner later conceded removability but sought review of the waiver denial. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s request for relief and granted voluntary departure, finding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden to demonstrate she entered into her marriage in good faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the decisions by the BIA and IJ were supported by substantial evidence. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Germany, lawfully entered the United States in 1959. In 2004, Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under Connecticut law. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) later concluded that Petitioner was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony of child pornography under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(I) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Petitioner petitioned for review, contending the government did not meet its burden of showing that the state conviction fell under the federal statute because the relevant state law of conviction encompassed other conduct. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner’s admission in the state proceeding to having images of children “having sex” was sufficient to bring him within the federal statute’s definition of an aggravated felony of child pornography. View "Kaufmann v. Holder" on Justia Law