Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

An immigration judge found petitioner Nadia Maatougui removable for marriage fraud in 2004. Petitioner then asylum and four other forms of relief from removal. The Immigration Judge denied the requests, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioner claimed on appeal to the Tenth Circuit that the IJ and BIA erred in denying her a hardship waiver and cancellation of removal based on their credibility determinations and the weight they gave the evidence in her case. Under case law, the Tenth Circuit determined it did not have jurisdiction to overturn their credibility determinations or evidence weighing, and thus could not grant relief on that claim. Petitioner also claimed that changed conditions in her native Morocco and the ineffective assistance of her prior counsel at a hearing in 2004 merited reopening her case. The Tenth Circuit concluded petitioner failed to present new, material, previously unavailable evidence that justified reopening her case. View "Maatougui v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States illegally using a fraudulent passport. After Petitioner was charged with removal, Petitioner conceded his removability but filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications, concluding (1) Petitioner established that he had suffered past persecution in Albania due to his political sympathies and his ethnic background and was consequently entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, but (2) the government's admitted evidence was sufficient to rebut the presumption. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed, finding that the government's evidence of changed country conditions rebutted the presumption of relief raised by Petitioner's past persecution on political and ethnic grounds. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the evidence supported the BIA's finding of materially changed country conditions since Petitioner's departure, and therefore, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner's applications. View "Ruci v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, entered the United States illegally and was charged with removability. Petitioner conceded removability but requested relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second time the matter was before the immigration judge (IJ), the IJ determined that Petitioner was not entitled to relief in any form. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, concluding that Petitioner's applications for relief were governed by the REAL ID Act and that Petitioner was not entitled to relief from removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA (1) erred in determining the REAL ID Act applied to Petitioner's case, but the error was harmless; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to asylum where he did not demonstrate that he had experienced past persecution or that he had a well founded fear of future persecution. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Individual plaintiffs alleged that they were illegally stopped, searched, or detained by the U.S. Border Patrol for the Sandusky Bay Ohio Station, based upon their Hispanic appearance, race and ethnicity. They claimed that in the three years the station has been open, 61.8% to 85.6% of those apprehended have been Hispanic, and use of racial slurs by agents. Plaintiffs sought equitable relief and monetary damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents and 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, and claimed that agents had violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The complaint alleged conspiracy between the Border Patrol and municipalities, police chiefs and individual officers, to violate the civil rights of Hispanics. An amended complaint added the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, as a source of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs settled their claims with local agencies. The district court denied plaintiffs’ request to add claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 and dismissed, determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs had failed to establish waiver of sovereign immunity. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The APA section 702 waiver of sovereign immunity extends to all non-monetary claims against federal agencies and their officers sued in their official capacity, regardless of whether plaintiff seeks review of “agency action” or “final agency action” as set forth in section 704.View "Muniz-Muniz v. U.S. Border Patrol" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, was charged with being subject to removal. Petitioner conceded removability. Petitioner subsequently submitted an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief pursuant to the Convention Against Torture, which the immigration judge denied. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner later moved to reopen his case, citing changed country conditions and claiming that he would be targeted for persecution on account of his religion. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's motion for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for any form of relief. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, who had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and, alternatively, post-hearing voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's requests for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Eight months later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen to allow him to apply for pre-hearing voluntary departure, but because the motion was filed beyond the time allotted by the applicable regulation, the motion was addressed to the BIA's sua sponte authority to reopen. The BIA denied the motion and subsequently refused reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the denial of reconsideration, holding that it lacked the authority to review the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reconsider the failure to grant relief where Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely. View "Charuc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without admission or parole. In 2005, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Petitioner as removable. After a hearing in 2008 at which Petitioner did not appear, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen in order to submit an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration court granted the motion to reopen. A few days before the deadline for her application, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance seeking additional time to file the application. After the deadline had passed, the immigration court denied the motion for continuance and held that Petitioner had abandoned the application for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) the immigration court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. View "Soto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law