Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner later sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting that he was likely to be tortured by gang members if he were returned to his native country. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal, concluding that Petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not commit legal error in denying Petitioner's request for relief under the CAT because the conclusion that Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. View "Martinez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of El Salvador, was an ex-member of a violent criminal street gang based in the United States. After Petitioner was charged as removable, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner claimed that he would face persecution and torture due to his former gang membership if repatriated. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications, concluding that as a former member of the gang, Petitioner was not a member of a protected social group eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency's decision that Petitioner was not a member of a particular social group must stand; and (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner did not qualify for relief under the CAT. View "Cantarero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arturo Velasco appealed an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because petitioner had been granted suspension of deportation during prior deportation proceedings, he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Velasco v. Holder" on Justia Law

An Indonesian couple appealed the denial of their applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the application was untimely, and therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. View "Batubara v. Holder" on Justia Law

After removal proceedings were instituted against Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, Petitioner conceded his removability but applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. In support, Petitioner claimed his unfavorable financial prospects in Ecuador made him fearful of returning against his native country. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the BIA denied. Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the BIA reconsider its decision rejecting his claim of persecution as well as a second motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of his prior counsel. The BIA denied both motions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration where the BIA correctly found that Petitioner did not allege grounds for withholding of removal. and (2) denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner did not carry his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Muyubisnay-Cungachi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Because the DHS had also initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner's cousin, who also applied for similar relief, the two sets of proceedings were consolidated. After a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied the cousins' applications, grounding her decision on a determination that neither man had testified credibly. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders of removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's issues even though it was Petitioner's cousin who raised them before the BIA; (2) the IJ's adverse credibility determination was correctly upheld because it was adequately tied to substantial evidence in the record; and (3) the IJ's denial of Petitioner's mid-trial request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. View "Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the U.S. in 2001 but ultimately overstayed their visas. Conceding their removability, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, contending that if they went back to Albania, they would become a target as a result of their political beliefs and activities. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' requests. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA and the IJ's denial of the asylum claim, holding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including evidence of a fundamental change in Albania such that Petitioners did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As Petitioners failed to show they were eligible for asylum, they were similarly ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. View "Vasili v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Brazilian citizen, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner then began working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to identify sellers of fraudulent immigration documents. Due to her work as an informant, Petitioner faced harassment and threats from people in the United States and in Brazil. Eventually, Petitioner stopped assisting the ICE because of the harassment, after which the government reinstated a prior removal order against her. Petitioner sought withholding of removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, claiming that she feared returning to Brazil due to threats she had received for her work with the ICE. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, holding that the persecution Petitioner faced was "on account of a personal vendetta and not on account of her membership in a particular social group." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that it could not overturn the determination that the risk Petitioner faced was personal and not due to her membership in a social group. View "Costa v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, pled guilty in state court to possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The Department of Homeland Security later ordered Petitioner's removal. Thereafter, Petitioner successfully sought vacatur of his criminal conviction. After Petitioner had been removed to the Dominican Republic, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion, invoking a regulation known as the "post-departure bar," which precludes a noncitizen from filing a motion to reopen after his departure from the United States. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the post-departure bar cannot prevent a noncitzen from invoking his statutory right to file a motion to reopen. View "Perez Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Respondent was involved in lengthy removal proceedings that culminated in her filing of a motion to reopen with the immigration judge that raised ineffective assistance of counsel and due process claims. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Respondent's appeals, concluding that, pursuant to a set of regulations known as the "post-departure bar," the agency lacked jurisdiction to entertain Respondent's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Respondent's petition for review, holding (1) as found in Perez Santana v. Holder, the post-departure bar conflicts with the unambiguous language of the motion to reopen statute; and (2) consequently, the regulation, in the circumstances applicable to this petition for review, cannot preclude Respondent from vindicating her right to seek reopening of her removal proceedings. View "Boliero v. Holder" on Justia Law