Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard the case of Ashley Rodriguez, a transgender woman who is a native and citizen of Mexico. The court reviewed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to remand her removal proceedings to the Immigration Judge (IJ) for the consideration of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).The court found that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to adequately address Rodriguez’s arguments in support of her motion to remand. Rodriguez had argued that she had good cause for missing the filing deadline for her application for asylum and other relief due to her homelessness and inability to access her personal documents during the relevant period. Her medical conditions and criminal history, which were relevant to her asylum application, were also unavailable for the same reasons.The court held that the BIA should have considered whether Rodriguez’s evidence was material and not reasonably available to her at the time of the final filing deadline. The court also held that the BIA had failed to properly evaluate whether Rodriguez had established good cause for missing the filing deadline.Thus, the court granted Rodriguez’s petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA to properly consider the merits of her motion. View "ALCAREZ-RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

Guatemalan citizens Miguel Pascual-Miguel and his daughter, Erika Gabriela Pascual-Miguel, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming the denial of their asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture requests by an immigration judge. They also sought review of the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel and Mendez Rojas class membership. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the petition, affirming the BIA's decisions. The court held that the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the court noted that the petitioners failed to show any evidence of persecutory motive related to their home in Guatemala being burned down, as they didn't know who did it or why. The court also held that the BIA's denial of the motions to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the attorney's misconduct did not prejudice the outcome of the removal proceedings and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm suffered and any protected ground, even if they were members of the Mendez Rojas class. View "Pascual-Miguel v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2002. But in 2019, a jury convicted him of possessing methamphetamine, a controlled substance, with intent to deliver, in violation of Idaho Code section 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings in 2021, charging that Petitioner is removable (1) under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), for having been convicted of an aggravated felony related to illicit trafficking in a controlled substance, and (2) under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), for having been convicted of violating a state law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner filed a motion to terminate proceedings, asserting that his conviction is neither for an aggravated felony nor for a crime related to a controlled substance. The immigration judge disagreed and ordered Petitioner’s removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner sought review of the final order of removal.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition. Applying the modified categorical approach, the panel concluded that Petitioner’s conviction record clearly documents that his conviction involved methamphetamine, a controlled substance under federal and Idaho law. The panel next concluded that the required mental state under federal and Idaho law—knowledge—is the same in all relevant respects: the defendant either must know what the substance is (even if the defendant does not know that it is controlled) or must know that the substance is illegal (even if the defendant does not know what the substance is). View "TELLEZ-RAMIREZ V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

On July 6, 2023, the Fourth Circuit granted Petitioner's petition for review, reversed the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner's application. The Attorney General filed a petition for panel hearing, claiming that the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations require that the Attorney General make a discretionary judgment as to whether asylum should be granted, even where a noncitizen has met the statutory requirements.The Fourth Circuit agreed. The power to grant asylum is vested solely in the hands of the Attorney General and, even if a noncitizen is otherwise eligible, the Attorney General is empowered by statute to deny relief. While discretionary denials of asylum are exceedingly rare Petitioner's claim that there are no grounds to deny asylum as a matter of discretion must first be considered by the Attorney General. View "Shaker Ullah v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel: (1) reversed a judgment of the district court granting Petitioner's habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention after an initial bond hearing; and (2) held that due process does not require a second bond hearing.Judge Paez issued a statement regarding the court's denial. Judge Paez joined by Judges Murguia, Wardlaw, Gould, Berzon, Koh, Sung, Sanchez, H.A. Thomas, Mendoza, and Desai, wrote that the panel opinion conflicts with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). View "AROLDO RODRIGUEZ DIAZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, ET AL" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, reentered the United States without inspection in 2003. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) ordered him removed to Mexico after reinstating an earlier removal order that had been entered against him in 1994. Petitioner expressed a fear of returning to Mexico. The asylum officer determined that Petitioner did not have a reasonable fear of such harm, and an immigration judge (“IJ”) affirmed that determination. Thirty days after the IJ’s decision—but more than thirty days after the date his removal order was reinstated—Petitioner petitioned for review on several grounds, including that the reasonable fear screening procedures established by federal regulation are inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing withholding of removal. Petitioner agreed that the thirty-day filing deadline is no longer jurisdictional, but still disagrees that his petition was untimely. Petitioner continues to maintain that Ortiz-Alfaro’s holding that petitions for review become ripe upon the conclusion of reasonable fear proceedings remains good law.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition. The panel held that: (1) the thirty-day deadline for filing a petition for review set forth in 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(b)(1) is a nonjurisdictional rule; (2) Petitioner’s petition for review, which was filed within thirty days of the conclusion of his reasonable fear proceedings, but not within thirty days of the reinstatement of his removal order, was timely; and (3) the reasonable fear screening procedures established by regulation are consistent with the statutory provisions governing withholding of removal. The panel concluded that Petitioner’s petition was timely, however denied the petition on the merits. View "JOSE ALONSO-JUAREZ V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge found Petitioner not credible and denied her application. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s credibility decision. In addition to challenging the adverse credibility finding, Petitioner claimed for the first time that the border interview record was improperly admitted into evidence at the IJ hearing. The BIA rejected that argument as waived and also rejected it on the merits. Petitioner petitioned the Second Circuit for review.   The Second Circuit granted in part, denied in part, and vacated the BIA’s decision. The court explained that the immigration judge failed to consider various factors that may have affected the reliability of the border interview record. Petitioner claimed that she was frightened during the interview because a border patrol officer hit her and yelled at her upon her arrival to the United States. Petitioner may also have been reluctant to reveal information about persecution because authorities in her home country were allegedly unwilling to help her due to her indigenous status. Moreover, the questions asked during Petitioner’s border interview generally were not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim. The court explained that in Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, it cautioned immigration judges to consider these factors and others before relying on a border interview to find an asylum applicant not credible. Consistent with Ramsameachire and subsequent precedent, the court wrote that immigration judges are required to take such precautions. View "Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These officials exercise significant authority within our immigration system, making them officers under the Appointments Clause.   The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members, and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her son entered the United States illegally after fleeing alleged gang violence in Honduras. They sought asylum and related relief but were denied; their appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was likewise dismissed. Petitioner then moved the BIA to reopen her and her son’s removal proceedings. The BIA denied her motion. Petitioner petitioned for a review of that denial.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, explaining that the court lacked jurisdiction over the BIA’s refusal to reopen Petitioner, and it otherwise rejects her claims on the merits. The court explained that there is no per se rule that every family-based PSG is cognizable. Congress did not make persecution based on “family” a statutorily enumerated ground for asylum or withholding of removal. The court wrote that Petitioner was required to put forward at least some evidence of the social distinction of her son’s nuclear family in Honduran society. Because she did not, she failed to make out a prima facie case of eligibility for withholding of removal or asylum. The consequence is that she failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by allegedly ineffective counsel. The BIA did not err in denying her motion to reopen proceedings on her withholding-of-removal and asylum claims. Moreover, the court explained that attempting to raise a due process claim through an argument about the BIA’s failure to reopen sua sponte does not bring the claim within the court’s jurisdiction. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, entered the United States in 2001. He remained in the country until 2008 when he was ordered removed. In 2015, Petitioner was charged with federal bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. In 2016, he was convicted of those charges after pleading guilty and sentenced to 44 months in prison. Based on Petitioner’s convictions, in August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) began removal proceedings against Petitioner. And also, because of those convictions, in September 2019, DHS moved to terminate his asylum status. Petitioner conceded he was removable based on the bank fraud and identity theft proceedings but requested the IJ waive those grounds for his removal. Petitioner also applied to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. And he separately sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ denied Petitioner’s request for a waiver. Petitioner asked the Fourth Circuit to grant his petition for review and vacate the BIA’s decision determining that the termination of his asylum status renders him ineligible to seek an adjustment of status to a lawful permanent resident under Section 1159(b).   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that Section 1159(b) unambiguously precludes an alien whose asylum status has been terminated from adjusting to lawful permanent resident status. On that basis, Petitioner’s argument fails at step one of the Chevron test. Since Petitioner’s asylum status had been terminated at the time he sought to adjust to lawful permanent resident status, he was not eligible for that adjustment. View "Tiger Cela v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law