Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Rais, born in Pakistan in 1975, entered the U.S. in 2002 to attend school, married a citizen, and applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residency. He was convicted of domestic violence against his wife, in 2002, and was granted advance parole, allowing him to leave the U.S. without abandoning his application for adjustment of status. He was paroled back into this country in 2003. In 2004, his application for adjustment of status was denied. Rais married another U.S. citizen in 2005, and again applied for adjustment of status. That application was denied in 2009 because of the domestic violence conviction. An IJ ordered his removal, determining that she lacked jurisdiction to grant adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255. The BIA affirmed. Rais twice moved to reopen removal proceedings, requesting that proceedings be suspended while the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudicates his application for adjustment of status. The BIA denied the first motion on the merits and refused to exercise its sua sponte authority to grant the second, which was untimely and number-barred. Rais sought review of the second denial. The Sixth Circuit dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to refrain from exercising its authority.View "Rais v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was physically removed from the United States to the Dominican Republic in 2002 after he received two state convictions with immigration consequences. In 2006, Petitioner entered the United States without inspection or admission. Petitioner subsequently filed an untimely motion with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen his proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen. In 2008, Petitioner filed an untimely motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision. The BIA decided to sua sponte reopen the proceedings in 2008 and remanded the record back to the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied relief and ordered Petitioner’s deportation. Petitioner appealed. In 2012, the BIA determined that its 2008 order sua sponte reopening proceedings was issued in error and ultimately denied Petitioner’s 2008 motion to reconsider. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA’s 1012 order effectively denying sua sponte reopening proceedings. The First Circuit dismissed the petition for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny reopening removal proceedings sua sponte. View "Guerrero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Khan is a Mohajir: his parents were immigrants into Pakistan when it was partitioned from the British Indian Empire in 1947. Some Mohajirs formed a political party—the Mohajir Qaumi Movement—in response to perceived repression by nonimmigrant locals. Khan joined in 1992 when he was 14 or 15 years old. He distributed flyers, attended meetings, and recruited people to the cause. The group became increasingly violent, however, and many Mohajirs, including Khan, left to join a new, supposedly more peaceful group, MQM-Haqiqi. But this party too resorted to violence, so Khan eventually left. Khan became a target and was repeatedly attacked, kidnapped, and tortured by members of the first party. He fled to the U.S. on a visitor visa, and when it expired, sought asylum and other forms of relief from removal. While his case was pending, he married a U.S. citizen, making him eligible for permanent residency through his marriage. An immigration judge accepted the government’s position, rejecting Khan under the “terrorism bar,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I); the BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review, declining to interpret the “knowledge exception” to the terrorism bar because Khan did not raise it before the BIA. View "Khan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Somalian national, was charged with removability as an alien present without having been admitted or paroled after inspection. Petitioner filed a second application, the first of which was deemed abandoned, requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief and ordered Petitioner removed to Somalia, premising his decision on an adverse credibility determination stemming from Petitioner’s “pernicious pattern of prevarication.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed in all respects. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that BIA articulated specific and cogent reasons in support of its adverse credibility determination. View "Ahmed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Yongguo Lai, a native and citizen of China, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing Lai's appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA relied on the IJ's finding that Lai's claim of persecution and torture on account of his Christian religion was not credible. The IJ based her ruling, in relevant part, on Lai's testimony during cross-examination that contained information the IJ found to be missing from and inconsistent with Lai's initial written application and direct testimony, and uncorroborated in one respect. Upon review, the Ninth Circuit concluded the BIA's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Lai v. Holder" on Justia Law

Husband and wife Alberto Martinez Molina and Cristina Ramirez Rivera were Mexican citizens subject to final orders of removal from the United States. After an immigration judge declined to cancel their removal orders, the couple filed a motion to reopen based on ineffective representation of counsel. With the motion, they submitted evidence that they had resided in the United States since 1998. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion, reasoning that the couple had not shown prejudice because the evidence that they submitted: (1) could not overcome discrepancies in their testimony, and (2) was the same or substantially similar to the evidence considered by the immigration judge. The spouses then filed a petition for review, arguing that: (1) the Board abused its discretion in rejecting their claim for ineffective representation, and (2) the immigration judge failed to consider the entire record. As to Ms. Ramirez, the Tenth Circuit affirmed: the Board acted within its discretion in rejecting her ineffective-representation claim, and Ms. Ramirez did not exhaust her claim involving failure of the immigration judge to consider the entire record. As to Mr. Martinez, the Court remanded to the Board: Mr. Martinez did not exhaust his claim involving failure to consider the entire record, but he did exhaust his ineffective-representation claim, and the Board abused its discretion when it mistakenly concluded that the newly submitted evidence was the same or substantially similar to the evidence considered by the immigration judge. View "Molina v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, submitted an application for “temporary protected status,” which affords aliens protection from removal from the United States upon a determination that conditions in the alien’s home country prevent the alien’s safe return. The Attorney General designated El Salvador as a country whose nationals may qualify for temporary protected status after two large earthquakes struck the country. The Department of Homeland Security denied Petitioner’s application. Petitioner was later served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Petitioner subsequently filed a renewed application for temporary protected status. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application after finding that Petitioner failed to provide “reliable” information that he was in the country soon enough to be eligible for temporary protected status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the decision of the BIA, holding that the reasons the BIA gave for its decision were not adequate in this instance. Remanded. View "Shul-Navarro v. Holder" on Justia Law

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