Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China. In 2002, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the denial of Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, claiming he risked persecution if he returned to China because of his political activity. Petitioner claimed that the ninety-day deadline to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings was inapplicable because his motion was based on changed country conditions in China. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion to reopen as untimely, determining that he had not demonstrated changed country conditions that would exempt his motion from the deadline. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to satisfy any of the exceptions to the time limit for a motion to reopen. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Pro se petitioner Peter Munis appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of his request for discretionary removal. Petitioner overstayed his student visa and got a job without authorization which led to initiation of removal proceedings. Petitioner conceded the charge of removability, but sought discretionary relief, arguing that his marriage to an American citizen was grounds to adjust his status, and without relief, would pose an extreme hardship to his wife. The government raised petitioner's criminal history as grounds for removal. The IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Finding that the BIA's discretionary denial of a waiver of inadmissibility or adjustment of status absent a legal or constitutional question was unreviewable, the Tenth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Munis v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arturo Montano-Vega admitted to remaining in the United States illegally, and requested permission to leave voluntarily. Petitioner wanted to avoid a ten-year bar on readmission for aliens who had been "ordered removed." The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case refused the request. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration appeals: if he continued the appeal, he would have to stay in the U.S. for the duration; if he left, the BIA would consider his appeal abandoned and subject petitioner to the ten-year ban. Petitioner elected to leave, and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner appealed the BIA's decision to the Tenth Circuit challenging the application of 8 C.F.R. 1003.4 to his case in addition to the immigration judge's refusal to allow him to leave voluntarily. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied petitioner's challenge to the BIA order because by leaving, his appeal was deemed withdrawn, leaving the court without jurisdiction to hear the case. View "Montano-Vega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Elia Ibarra was ordered removed by the Department of Homeland Security for a Colorado conviction on child abuse. The events leading up to her conviction were unclear, but it was undisputed that petitioner's children were unintentionally left home alone while she was at work. No child was injured. Petitioner requested discretionary relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case decided that she was ineligible cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit to review the immigration judge's decision that found her Colorado conviction for "child abuse-negligence-no injury" was the same as (or close enough to be categorically considered) "child abuse, neglect or abandonment" as codified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the Board of Immigration Appeals' then-current interpretation of "child abuse, neglect and abandonment" extended the full range of conduct criminalized by the Colorado statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the BIA's decision rendering petitioner ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. View "Ibarra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the district court's holding affirming the USCIS's denial of several of plaintiff's petitions for Q-1 visas for foreign applicants to its cultural exchange program. USCIS denied the petitions because it interpreted its regulation to require sponsors of a cultural exchange program to pay wages to the participating aliens and plaintiff admittedly did not pay its participants any wages. Given 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(Q)'s specific references to "employed," "wages," and "workers," the court agreed with USCIS that the statute was best read to require that the foreign citizens receive wages and that those wages be equivalent to the wages of domestic workers. Given 8 C.F.R. 214.2(q)(4)(i)(D)'s references to "employer," "wages," "workers," and "remunerate," the court agreed with USCIS that the regulation was best read to require that foreign citizens receive wages and that those wages be comparable to those of local workers. Finally, when USCIS denied plaintiff's petitions in 2010, the agency did not trigger the notice-and-comment procedures in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604, 605(b), or the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 533(b)-(c), because the denials were not rules under either act; rather, they were informal adjudications. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Int'l Internship Program v. Napolitano, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioners, Lebanese citizens, were raised Muslim. While visiting the United States in 2005, Petitioners converted to Christianity. When they returned to the Ivory Coast, where they were living at the time, Petitioners received a number of threats, which they attributed to the Muslim population's reaction to their conversion to Christianity. Petitioners subsequently began living in the United States on expired visas, and the United States began removal proceedings against them. Petitioners filed challenged the proceedings, asserting that they had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Lebanon, based on their belief that Lebanon's majority Muslim population would carry out the threats made in the Ivory Coast. The immigration judge (IJ) rejected petitioners' claims, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that Petitioners failed to prove they had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Lebanon in order to qualify for asylum; (2) the BIA did not err in rejecting Plaintiffs' claim for withholding of removal; and (3) the Convention Against Torture did not require the BIA to forestall Petitioners' return to Lebanon. View "Darwich v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a Jordanian national who entered the United States illegally. Once Plaintiff was placed in removal proceedings, he married his first cousin, a marriage that lasted one year. Plaintiff subsequently married his second wife. Both marriages were to United States citizens. Plaintiff's second wife filed an I-130 petition on Plaintiff's behalf. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the petition, concluding that Plaintiff previously entered into his first marriage for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Plaintiff and his wife filed an amended complaint in the district court seeking to set aside the BIA's decision. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court without reaching the merits of the appeal, holding (1) the district court erred in invoking the plausibility standard in deciding that this case did not warrant either discovery or trial, as the plausibility standard does not apply to a complaint for judicial review of a final agency action; and (2) the methodologic error was not harmless where the parties failed to file the administrative record with the court. View "Atieh v. Riordan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100. Proposition 100 commands that Arizona state courts could not set bail for serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof was evident or the presumption great as to the charge. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs have not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United State's Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws were preempted by federal immigration law. The court concluded that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed the Proposition 100 laws to further the state's legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes were brought to trial. View "Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Pakistani native, fled Pakistan in 1993 as a result of threats against him from a subsidiary of the ruling Pakistan Mulsim League. Petitioner entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor in 1999 but remained in the country beyond the time authorized. In 2005, Petitioner appeared before the Immigration Judge (IJ), conceded removability, and applied for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. In support of his applications, Petitioner testified to the threats he received, which continued even in his absence. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted in part and denied part Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Board's withholding-of-removal decision was contrary to the evidence; and(2) the IJ and BIA's CAT rulings were supported by the record. Remanded for further proceedings. View "Javed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a United States citizen, filed a visa petition on behalf of her husband, a citizen of Afghanistan, but the visa was denied under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B). Section 1182(a)(3)(B) is a broad provision that excludes aliens on a variety of terrorism-related grounds. The court concluded that the Government's citation to section 1182(a)(3)(B), in the absence of any allegations of proscribed conduct, was not a facially legitimate reason to deny the visa. Because the Government had not offered a facially legitimate reason, plaintiff's claims for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to adjudicate the visa application and for a declaratory judgment survived dismissal. Accordingly, the court also concluded that plaintiff had standing to challenge 8 U.S.C. 1182(b)(3) as it had been applied to her. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Din v. Kerry" on Justia Law