Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) later issued Petitioner a notice to appear in removal proceedings. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application for withholding of removal but granted his application for voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err by determining that Petitioner had not been a victim of past persecution in Guatemala; (2) Petitioner's argument that the BIA erred in finding he was not a member of a particular social group was not grounds for granting his petition for review; and (3) imposing a requirement of "social visibility" as to "social groups" did not constitute an arbitrary and capricious agency interpretation. View "Tay-Chan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Erasmo Rojas-Perez (Rojas), the lead petitioner in this case, and his wife, Angelica Garcia-Angeles (Garcia), sought review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioners, who had entered the United States without inspection, had filed applications for withholding of removal based on their stated belief that if the family returned to Mexico, their son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born in the U.S., could be kidnapped and held for ransom. The BIA reasoned that Petitioners' stated fear was not properly grounded in their belonging to a discernible social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act because "fear of persecution based on perceived wealth does not constitute a particular social group under the [INA]." The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Rojas's petition for review, as the BIA's determinations were based on substantial evidence in the record. View "Rojas-Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum, asserting that he had fled his native country due to political persecution. After the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him, Petitioner argued he was the victim of past political persecution and that, if returned to Guatemala, he would be subject to persecution on account of "membership of a particular social group," namely, the group of Guatemalan nationals repatriated from the United States. The immigration judge denied relief, finding that Petitioner was a credible witness but that the facts did not support his asylum application or other claims for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner's request for statutory withholding of removal necessarily failed, as Petitioner did not establish that he would be persecuted based on his "membership in a particular social group" or his "political opinion." View "Escobar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of illicit trafficking - an aggravated felony - and also of an offense under a state law relating to a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Petitioner based on these offenses. Petitioner filed a responsive pleading seeking to terminate the removal proceedings or, in the alternative, to cancel removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's motion to terminate and ordered Petitioner to be removed to Jamaica. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner pled to possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 21a-277(b), that the offense was a subordinate offense constituting "trafficking," and therefore, Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking as defined by federal law. View "James v. Holder" on Justia Law