Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Chinese national, entered the United States without inspection in 1993. Federal authorities soon served Petitioner with a show-cause order charging removability. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled removal hearing, and the immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of deportation in absentia. Several years later, Petitioner moved to reopen the proceedings. The IJ denied Petitioner’s motion as untimely, concluding that Petitioner had waited too long past the 180-day deadline for such motions to file his motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. More than eight years later, Petitioner filed a second motion to reopen directly with the BIA. The BIA denied the second motion to reopen, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Almost three years later, Petitioner filed a third motion to reopen. The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluding that no plausible justification existed for relieving Petitioner from the 180-day deadline. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that the BIA acted within its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s third motion to reopen was untimely. View "Wang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indian national who entered the United States unlawfully in 2003, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. After a hearing on the merits, an immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application, finding that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum and that rejection of Petitioner’s claim for withholding must follow from the defeat of Petitioner’s asylum claim. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner in this case was a native and citizen of Sri Lanka. In 2007, an immigration judge (IJ) rejected Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and ordered Petitioner removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. In 2010, Petitioner moved to reopen her case, alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied the motion. In 2012, more than three years after the BIA had affirmed Petitioner’s order of removal, Petitioner filed another motion to reopen, along with related relief, again alleging changed country conditions. The BIA denied relief, concluding that Petitioner’s proof did not show changed country conditions, that she had not shown prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal, asylum, or CAT relief, and that no exceptional circumstances justified exercising its discretion to reopen on its own. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA did not reversibly err in concluding that Petitioner’s second reopen motion was barred by her failure to show a material adverse change in country conditions. View "Perera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Colombian national, obtained a tourist visa to enter the United States. Petitioner overstayed her visa, after which federal authorities initiated removal proceedings against her. Petitioner conceded removability but cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the United National Convention Against Torture, claiming that she had been persecuted, and would face future persecution, on account of her status as the expatriate widow of a slain narco-trafficker. An immigration judge denied Petitioner’s application for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) entered a final order denying Petitioner asylum and ordering her removed to her homeland. The First Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the final order of removal and denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err in invoking the REAL ID Act’s corroboration requirements to her asylum application; and (2) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner failed to carry her burden of proving either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Moreno v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in New Hampshire arrested six aliens who had prior criminal convictions or arrests. The arrests were part of a nationwide enforcement program. The Union Leader, a New Hampshire newspaper, requested the names and addresses of the six individuals arrested in New Hampshire. The ICE provided the Union Leader with I-213 forms from which the aliens’ names, addresses, and other personal information had been redacted. The Union Leader subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint to compel disclosure of the arrestees’ names and addresses. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of ICE, concluding that FOIA exempted the requested information from disclosure as an unwarranted invasion of the arrestees’ privacy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the arrestees’ privacy interests, and therefore, the withheld information subject to this appeal was not exempt from disclosure. Remanded. View "Union Leader Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. " on Justia Law

Petitioners, Nova Flora Marsadu and Roly Rondonuwu, were a married couple who were native citizens of Indonesia. Marsadu, and later Rondonuwu, filed applications for asylum based on their fears of being persecuted in Indonesia due to their Christian faith. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioners later filed an untimely motion with the BIA to reopen removal proceedings, arguing that they were prima facie eligible for asylum due to recent changes in Indonesia’s conditions that put them at risk of persecution. The BIA denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen removal proceedings, concluding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would face religious persecution if they returned to Indonesia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioners' petition for review, holding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to warrant reopening of their removal proceedings. View "Marsadu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Guatemala, entered the United States illegally in the mid-1990s. In 2008, Petitioners applied for asylum. Their application was denied, and removal proceedings subsequently began. Petitioners conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, asserting that their departure would cause hardship to their twelve-year-old son, Brian, who was born in the United States and would, Petitioners claimed, face several formidable obstacles in Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners’ application and ordered them removed to Guatemala, finding that Petitioners failed to meet the hardship eligibility requirement for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ’s judgment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied in part and otherwise dismissed Petitioners’ petition for review, holding that the IJ correctly found that the evidence presented by Petitioners was not capable of supporting an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” finding. View "Alvarado v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a new regulation governing calculation of the minimum wage an employer must offer (prevailing wage) under the H-2B visa program, which permits U.S. employers to recruit foreign workers to fill unskilled, non-agricultural positions that no qualified U.S. worker will accept, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b). Associations representing employers in non-agricultural industries that recruit H-2B workers, concerned about higher labor costs as a result of the 2011 Wage Rule, challenged its validity. The district court and the Third Circuit upheld the regulation, rejecting arguments that DOL lacked authority to promulgate legislative rules concerning the H-2B program and that, even if the DOL has such rulemaking authority, its violation of certain procedural requirements invalidated the Rule.View "LA Forestry Ass'n, Inc. v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Labor" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with removability based on the termination of her conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner conceded removability but filed multiple I-751 forms with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and requested waivers of the joint-filing requirement for removal of conditions on permanent residency. The USCIS denied the petitions. An immigration judge (IJ) ordered removal and denied Petitioner’s waiver requests because Petitioner failed to establish either good faith or extreme hardship. Also, in an exercise of the IJ’s discretion, the IJ separately denied Petitioner’s requests for a waiver because of moral character concerns due to Petitioner’s having been convicted of theft. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) adopted the decision of the IJ. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review for want of jurisdiction because Petitioner raised no colorable legal or constitutional claims upon review. View "Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, illegally entered the United States in 2003. In 2006, Petitioner was charged as removable. Petitioner conceded his removability and applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure from the United States. At a merits hearing before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner testified that he feared being the victim of gang violence in Guatemala because he taught and counseled students to avoid joining gangs. The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection and granted him voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner subsequently moved to reopen removal proceedings on the basis of new evidence he claimed showed that teachers who opposed gang practices were being persecuted. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding the new evidence did not warrant a different outcome in Petitioner’s case or in finding the new evidence was not material. View "Rosales-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law