Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Russia, overstayed their visas and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications but granted them voluntary departure. In regards to Petitioners' asylum application, the IJ found that Petitioner Pavel Ivanov's testimony about mistreatment he experienced because of his Pentecostal faith was credible and consistent, but that the persecution Ivanov experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's asylum determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Ivanov established his eligibility for asylum. View "Ivanov v. Holder" on Justia Law

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