Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In a direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Enrique De La Cruz challenged the district court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence the United States obtained during an investigative seizure. ICE agents detained Petitioner while looking for another person they believed to be in the United States illegally. Upon review of his fake identification card, agents discovered that Petitioner was himself unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported. On that basis, the agents arrested him. A federal grand jury indicted Petitioner for unlawfully reentering the United States after a previous deportation. Petitioner moved to suppress the evidence agents obtained from him arguing that, at the time the agents asked him for his identification, they were no longer justified in detaining him because the agents no longer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Petitioner's motion. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), reserving the right to appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Government failed to establish that an objective officer would have had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was involved in criminal activity once the agents determined that he was not the original person they were looking for and before Petitioner provided the agents with the false identification card. The Court reversed the district court’s decision denying Petitioner's suppression motion and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. De La Cruz" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Liberia, filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner conceded his removability, and the immigration judge (IJ) scheduled a merits hearing to adjudicate Petitioner's applications. Because Petitioner's counsel failed to submit required biometric and biographical information to the Department of Homeland Security, the IJ found that Petitioner had abandoned his asylum application and ordered him removed to Liberia. Petitioner did not appeal. Three years later, Petitioner moved to reopen his case, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion as untimely. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner should have the benefit of the equitable tolling doctrine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, agreeing with the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely, as Petitioner had not diligently pursued his rights. View "Bead v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection. After the Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings, Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United National Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's cross-application and entered an order of removal. Petitioner appealed, contending that threats to his life or freedom because of his membership in a gang precluded his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the order. In support of his motion, he argued, for the first time, that his family constituted a particular social group and that he feared persecution on account of his family membership, among other things. The BIA denied the motion because it did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's original decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner in this situation may not proffer, as the basis for a motion to reconsider, a ground for relief which, though previously available, was not previously asserted. View "Martinez-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner as an alien who entered the United States without inspection. Although he conceded removability, Petitioner indicated that he intended to use the proceeding to obtain adjustment of his immigration status. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his application was timely filed. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the IJ erred by relying on the stamped date of his application rather than the original submission date and therefore in not adjusting his status. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ's determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in its judgment. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a wife and husband, were Chinese nationals. In removal proceedings, Petitioners argued that, if repatriated, they would be subjected to involuntary sterilization. The Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Petitioners' testimony was not believable and, therefore, Petitioners had failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (1) affirmed the denial of Petitioners' applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture; and (2) denied Petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Petitioners sought judicial review. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petitions for review, holding (1) the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding to sustain the adverse credibility determinations; and (2) the IJ and BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioners' claims for asylum based on a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a husband and wife and their son, were citizens and natives of Armenia who were ordered removed from the United States following the denial of their asylum claim in 1997. They resided in the country until 2011, when they filed a motion to reopen their asylum claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied this motion, and Petitioners appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that, although the BIA's refusal to open must be affirmed, the Court would stay the mandate as to the son for ninety days to allow him to apply for relief because he was a strong candidate for deferred action. To ensure the family was not removed before the government had time to consider the question, the Court also stayed the mandate for ninety days as to the husband and wife. View "Gasparian v. Holder" on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced "regular" removal proceedings against Petitioner Antonio Aguilar-Aguilar, a citizen of Mexico. In response to the Notice to Appear (NTA), Petitioner conceded his removal as "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted." Petitioner informed the immigration judge (IJ), however, that he was in the process of seeking discretionary relief in the form of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). Over Petitioner's objection, DHS then moved to dismiss the NTA as improvidently issued and to terminate Petitioner's proceedings without prejudice. As an alien without lawful residency who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, Petitioner was deportable and thus amenable to "expedited" removal proceedings. After the IJ granted DHS's motion, DHS commenced proceedings against Petitioner and issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) directing his removal to Mexico. The FARO found Petitioner "ineligible for any relief from removal that [DHS] may grant in an exercise of discretion." Petitioner now asks us to review a FARO he claims DHS issued in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The Tenth Circuit denied review: "Petitioner simply 'has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." And that is all Petitioner [sought]" on appeal. View "Aguilar-Aguilar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, filed an action in District Court alleging that the BIA's decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) prohibited APA claims that indirectly challenged a removal order. All claims challenging the procedure and substance of agency determinations "inextricably linked" to the order of removal were prohibited by section 1252(a)(5), no matter how the claims were framed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martinez v. Napolitano, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner Hector Barrera–Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal from the United States. He sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal. "Because Congress tightly constrains [the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals'] power to review discretionary aspects of the BIA’s orders of removal, we must dismiss in part his petition for lack of jurisdiction." The Court could, however, review constitutional claims and questions of law involving statutory construction. In this case, Petitioner's eligibility for cancellation of removal hinged on whether he maintained at least ten years of continuous physical presence in this country, as required by the terms of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1229b(b)(1)(A). Because the BIA relied on a reasonable statutory construction in finding Petitioner failed to satisfy the continuous-presence requirement, the Court denied the remainder of the petition for review. View "Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador who entered the United States without inspection at the age of seventeen, sought judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was a refugee under immigration laws because he did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. In addition, Petitioner was not eligible for relief under the CAT, as he set forth no evidence that there was any prospect he would be tortured if he was returned to El Salvador. View "Perlera-Sola v. Holder" on Justia Law