Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs challenged certain rules issued by the Department of Labor governing the employment of temporary, non-agricultural foreign workers, asserting that the Department had no authority to issue these rules. The district court agreed and granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the rules during the pendency of the action. The court found that the district court's legal conclusion regarding plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits was without error, and its finding of fact supporting its conclusion that none of the other factors militates against the issuance of the preliminary injunction was without clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bayou Lawn & Landscape Svcs, et al v. Pineros Y Campesinos Unido, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner was granted conditional permanent residency in the U.S. on the basis of her marriage to a U.S. citizen. Petitioner and her husband then began divorce proceedings. Petitioner subsequently sought to remove the conditions on her residency. The Department of Homeland Security (Department) denied Petitioner's petition, terminated her conditional resident status, and initiated removal proceedings against her, concluding that Petitioner did not establish that she married her husband in good faith. In removal proceedings, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's request for removal of conditions and determined Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because she could not establish the requisite good moral character. Consequently, the IJ ordered Petitioner's removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Petitioner did not establish she married her husband in good faith; and (2) the Board did not err in concluding that Petitioner was subject to a mandatory bar to a finding of good moral character on the basis of false testimony in her immigration proceedings. View "Reynoso v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, entered the United States without being admitted or paroled. When Petitioner was placed into removal proceedings, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's applications for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's order, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum, as Petitioner failed to demonstrate her status as a refugee; and (2) because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was eligible for asylum, her claims for withholding of removal and relief under CAT also failed. View "Guaman-Loja v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2003, Petitioner pled guilty to conspiracy-to-commit larceny stemming from a scheme in which Petitioner stole from the dorm rooms of his college classmates. At the time, Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident. Consequently, an immigration judge and the board of immigration appeals (BIA) found that Petitioner was removable because his crimes involved "moral turpitude" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order dismissing Petitioner's appeal, holding that the BIA erred in finding Petitioner removable, as there was no statement in Petitioner's plea colloquy admitting an intent to commit a permanent deprivation. Remanded. View "Patel v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without inspection in 1992. In 1995, an immigration judge (IJ) adjudged Petitioner deportable and gave her until 1996 to voluntarily depart. Petitioner remained in the country. In 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings, basing her motion on charged circumstances and citing her marriage to a United States citizen and approval of her visa petition. The IJ denied her motion as untimely. The board of appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner missed the deadline to file a motion to reopen, and none of the regulatory exceptions to the deadline applied in this case. View "Paca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a Pakistani native and his family, sought refuge in the United States in 2009 after the Taliban began attacking Awami National Party (ANP) activists. Petitioner was an active member of the ANP. Later in 2009, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications and ordered them removed to Pakistan. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BOA) affirmed the IJ's order. The First Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioners' petition for review and vacated the order of the BIA, holding that neither the IJ nor the BIA presented a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole in this case. Remanded. View "Khattak v. Holder" on Justia Law

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