Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In 2021, the Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law that prioritize the arrest and removal from the U.S. of noncitizens who are suspected terrorists or dangerous criminals or who have unlawfully entered the country only recently. Texas and Louisiana claimed that the Guidelines contravened federal statutes that require the arrest of certain noncitizens upon their release from prison (8 U.S.C. 1226(c)) or entry of a final order of removal (1231(a)(2)). The district court found that the states had standing, citing costs they would incur, then found the Guidelines unlawful. The Fifth Circuit declined to stay the judgment.The Supreme Court reversed. Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact caused by the defendant and redressable by a court order. The alleged injury must “be legally and judicially cognizable.” There is no precedent, history, or tradition of federal courts entertaining lawsuits of this kind; a plaintiff lacks standing to bring such a suit “when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Such lawsuits implicate the Executive’s Article II authority to decide how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate the law, which extends to the immigration context. The Court stated that the standing calculus might change if the Executive Branch wholly abandoned its statutory responsibilities to make arrests or bring prosecutions and that policies governing the continued detention of noncitizens who have been arrested arguably might raise different standing questions. View "United States v. Texas" on Justia Law

Petitioner Sarah Farum filed a frivolous asylum application. An immigration judge determined the application rendered her permanently ineligible for immigration benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Farnum did not challenge the frivolousness finding made by the immigration judge, nor did she challenge she had proper notice of the consequences of filing a false application. She instead challenged the timing of when the frivolous-asylum bar was effective. In her view, the frivolous-application bar outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) could not be invoked in the same proceeding as a frivolousness finding was made, thus allowing an immigration court to consider other potential claims that might support a finding that the Attorney General should withhold her deportation. To this, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed: "Once an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals makes the required frivolousness finding, the statutory bar is effective." View "Farnum v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that government agents searched his cell phone at the border without a warrant on at least five occasions and that agents copied data from his cell phone at least once. Plaintiff sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the respective heads of each entity in their official capacity (collectively, the government), challenging the searches, as well as ICE and CBP policies regarding border searches of electronic devices. In the district court, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking, among other relief, a preliminary injunction preventing the government from searching his cell phone at the border without a warrant. The district court denied the preliminary injunction.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial threat he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. The court reasoned that Plaintiff has demonstrated that the ICE and CBP policies authorize warrantless searches. Further, the allegations in Plaintiff’s verified complaint are evidence of a pattern of warrantless searches of Plaintiff’s cell phone. However, Plaintiff has no additional evidence to establish that he will be stopped by border agents in the future and that the agents will search his cell phone without a warrant. View "Anibowei v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Texas and Missouri filed suit seeking to compel DHS to employ the $2.75 billion Congress allocated “for the construction of [a] barrier system along the southwest border” before those funds expire. The district court dismissed Texas for “claim splitting,” held that Missouri did not have standing to sue, and denied the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction as moot. The states appealed.On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions for the district court to "expeditiously consider the States’ motion for a preliminary injunction." The court explained Texas should not have been dismissed for claim splitting because Texas’s Article III standing confers federal jurisdiction. In terms of causation, Texas needs only to have alleged facts showing the Federal Defendants’ conduct is a cause-in-fact of the injury that the State asserts. Here, Texas claimed that border barriers (i) reduce illegal entries in areas where constructed, and (ii) increase the rate at which illegal aliens are detected and apprehended.However, the court declined to order the states' requested remedy, instead remanding the case to the district court. View "State of Missouri v. Biden" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's claim that he had a reasonable fear of persecution if repatriated to his native Ghana on account of his membership in a particular social group, holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and immigration judge (IJ) correctly rejected Petitioner's claim.Petitioner conceded his removability but cross-applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, testifying that, if returned to Ghana, he would be tortured and killed because his family never surrendered formal title to land taken from them by a local chieftain. The IJ ordered Petitioner removed to Ghana, and the BIA dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for judicial review, holding that the IJ and BIA did not err in finding that the interpersonal conflict between Petitioner's family and the chieftain was unconnected to a statutorily-protected ground for relief. View "Odei v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming Petitioner's order of removal and denying his application for adjustment of status, holding that a conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws (MGL) ch. 269, 11C is not categorically a firearm offense, as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(c).Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, pleaded guilty in Massachusetts state court to defacing or receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number in violation of MGL ch. 269, 11C. The Department of Homeland Security later initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner charging him with removal based solely on his Massachusetts state court conviction. Petitioner moved to terminate the proceedings on the grounds that his Massachusetts conviction did not qualify as a removable firearm offense. The immigration judge sustained the removability charge and denied Petitioner's ensuing application to adjust his status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the BIA's opinion and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that MGL ch. 269, 11C was facially overbroad when compared to its federal counterpart. View "Portillo v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Agnes Mukantagara, and her son, Plaintiff Ebenezer Shyaka, challenged an unfavorable United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) decision on refugee status. Meanwhile, the government began separate removal proceedings. Plaintiffs filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking judicial review of the termination of their refugee status. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the agency action was not final and because of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the district court’s view, the regulation implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provision allowing for the termination of refugee status, 8 C.F.R § 207.9, constitutes a triggering event that “arises from” an action taken to remove an alien. The district court said Plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) because they challenged the decision “to seek removal.” The district court dismissed the action, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction. But the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined the district court read the statute too expansively. “Congress did not intend the zipper clause 'to cut off claims that have a tangential relationship with pending removal proceedings.' ... the regulation strips USCIS’s discretion whether it should take action to remove an alien under the circumstances.” USCIS’s decision “is not a decision to ‘commence proceedings,’ much less to ‘adjudicate’ a case or ‘execute’ a removal order.” View "Mukantagara, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the rulings of the district court granting Appellants attorney's fees under the the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which entitles a prevailing party in certain civil actions against the United States to remove attorney's fees unless the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust, holding that there was no error.Appellants brought this challenge against the Department of Homeland Security and its agency, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), after USCIS administratively closed each Appellant's application to adjust status, seeking attorney's fees under the EAJA. Determining that the government's position was substantially justified, the district court denied attorney's fees for the proceedings before the court but granted Appellants EAJA fees for the ensuing appellate proceedings that the government voluntarily dismissed. The First Circuit affirmed both rulings, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying EAJA fees related to the challenges before it; and (2) the district court did not err in its calculation of the EAJA award for the appellate proceedings abandoned by the government. View "Michel v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit vacated the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the immigration judge (IJ) denying Appellant's applications for asylum and withholding of removal and denied Appellant's petition for review as to Appellant's claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that remand was required for further proceedings.In denying Appellant's claims for asylum and related relief the IJ concluded that Appellant had failed to establish the requisite basis of fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the decisions in part, holding (1) Appellant was statutorily eligible for asylum on political opinion grounds; (2) because neither the IJ nor the BIA confronted the merits of Appellant's withholding of removal claim, remand was required for the IJ to assess the evidence in the first instance; and (3) the BIA's denial of Appellant's application for CAT protection was supported by substantial evidence. View "Mendez Esteban v. Garland" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal under sections 208(b)(1)(A) and 241(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Petitioner, a Guatemalan citizen, entered the United States illegally in 2016. After DHS charged him with being subject to removal Petitioner filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ denied relief from removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's unexhausted claim must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination, and the agency committed no errors of law in that ruling. View "Santos Garcia v. Garland" on Justia Law