Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order upholding the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He also challenged the BIA’s determination that defects in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”) did not require termination of his proceedings and that the BIA lacked authority to administratively close his case.   The Ninth Circuit filed: 1) an order withdrawing the opinion filed March 17, 2023, and reported at 62 F.4th 1223 (9th Cir. 2023), replacing that opinion with a concurrently filed amended opinion and, with these amendments, denying the government’s motion to amend; and 2) an amended opinion denying in part and granting in part Petitioner’s petition for review. In the amended opinion, the panel: (1) denied the petition as to Petitioner’s unexhausted argument that the omission of required time and place information in his NTA amounted to a claim-processing error; (2) remanded Petitioner’s administrative closure claim for further consideration in light of intervening precedent; and (3) remanded Petitioner’s asylum and withholding claims because the BIA erroneously reviewed the immigration judge’s nexus determination for clear error, rather than de novo. The panel concluded that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish the requisite government involvement or government acquiescence to any torture. View "JOSUE UMANA-ESCOBAR V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Santos-Zacaria, a noncitizen in removal proceedings, was denied protection from removal. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Santos-Zacaria’s petition for review in part, finding that she had not satisfied 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1)’s (Judicial Review of Orders of Removal) exhaustion requirement, which it raised sua sponte based on its characterization of 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional. Santos-Zacaria did not raise her impermissible fact-finding claim to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in a motion for reconsideration before filing her petition for judicial review.The Supreme Court vacated in part. Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional. To ensure that courts impose the harsh consequences of jurisdictional rules only when Congress unmistakably has so instructed, a rule is treated as jurisdictional “only if Congress ‘clearly states’ that it is.” Section 1252(d)(1) lacks a clear statement. Exhaustion requirements are quintessential claim-processing rules, designed to promote efficiency in litigation. Section 1252(d)(1)’s language differs substantially from the jurisdictional language in related statutory provisions. Section 1252(d)(1) requires exhausting only remedies available “as of right,” meaning review that is guaranteed, not discretionary. Reconsideration by the BIA, however, is discretionary. The right to request discretionary review does not make a remedy available as of right. The Court noted the practical problems that would arise under the government’s interpretation. View "Santos-Zacaria v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal. Petitioner is an auto mechanic from Guatemala. He testified that in February 2013, he took the bus to buy some tools. On the bus ride home, three men robbed him and the other passengers on the bus. He did not see the faces of two of the robbers. One of the men pressed a knife against Petitioner’s right side and took one of his cell phones and his wallet. The Attorney General initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. He then applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Petitioner argued that he was persecuted for his “anti-gang” political opinion and for his membership in the particular social group of witnesses who cooperate with law enforcement. The IJ denied his application, concluding that Petitioner did not show that his proposed social group is cognizable. Petitioner appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ’s decision. Petitioner appealed the BIA’s decision.   The Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review. The court explained that it agrees with the BIA that Petitioner has not proven that his proposed social group is socially distinct. Further, neither the BIA nor the IJ applied a presumption against Petitioner’s asylum claim on the ground that private, not government, actors allegedly persecuted him. And even if they had, remand would be unnecessary because the court already concluded that Petitioner has not proven membership in a cognizable social group. View "Jaime Oxlaj v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been ordered removed from the United States to Mexico. Petitioner concedes that he is removable but seeks cancellation of removal based on the hardship his removal would cause his family. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Petitioner’s application for cancellation, and Petitioner petitioned the court for review. Petitioner’s challenge is twofold. First, he contends that the IJ and the BIA failed to use the proper legal standard to assess his eligibility for discretionary relief. Second, he argued that the BIA erred by failing to remand his case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence as well as a potential grant of voluntary departure.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the IJ and BIA thoroughly considered each of Petitioner’s hardship arguments and applied the appropriate legal standard. The BIA also considered the new evidence presented by Petitioner but concluded that this evidence was unlikely to change the IJ’s decision. The record supports the conclusion that Petitioner failed to show that the consequences of his removal are “substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected when a close family member leaves his country.” Further, Petitioner did not present this argument to the BIA, and a petitioner “must fairly present an issue to the BIA to satisfy Section 1252(d)’s exhaustion requirement.” View "Rangel Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, his wife, and his three children are Libyan citizens who have resided lawfully in the United States for over a decade. Plaintiff filed an I-140 petition seeking a waiver of the labor-certification requirement of his visa because he is a “professional holding an advanced degree whose work is in the national interest of the United States.” While the petition was pending, Plaintiff and his family filed I-485 applications for status adjustment to legal permanent residents (“LPRs”) under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255(a). Section 1255 grants the Attorney General the discretion to adjust the status of certain aliens to LPR status if they have met certain statutorily specified conditions. The USCIS granted the family’s I-485 petitions prematurely. The district court found that it had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the original denial of the I-140 because Plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the order of dismissal. The court held that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review a status-adjustment decision by the USCIS under either the APA or the INA because the alien retains the right to de novo review of that decision in his final removal proceedings. Thus, the court found that Plaintiffs have not yet exhausted administrative remedies and the court may not exercise jurisdiction. View "Elldakli v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioner’s more pressing concern is to avoid a decision on the merits of this petition for review until he has successfully obtained relief from removal. To do so, he joins the government’s request to transfer this matter to mediation.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s and denied the parties’ joint request to send this case to mediation in order to put the appeal into abeyance while Petitioner pursued other forms of relief from removal. The panel found that the parties had not disguised the fact that the objective of transferring the matter to mediation was to delay Petitioner’s removal from the country until the government had agreed to provide discretionary relief. The panel wrote that it was an abuse of the court’s mediation process to use it for a purpose unrelated to resolving disputes and as a substitute for the issuance of a stay. The panel additionally noted that the government had numerous means to avoid enforcement against Petitioner, including specific procedural tools to hold Petitioner's case in abeyance, such as remanding the matter to the BIA, moving to reopen proceedings with the BIA or to dismiss the proceedings, requesting a continuance from the BIA, or simply deciding not to execute Petitioner’s final order of removal—decisions which are the prerogative of the Executive Branch, not the judiciary. Thus, the panel denied the motion to refer to mediation. View "NSHAN AYANIAN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissal of Petitioner’s appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for relief from removal. Because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by evidence in the record, the court determined that the BIA erred in affirming it and remanded the case to the BIA. Petitioner filed a timely application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).   The Fifth Circuit found that Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA and awarded $56,169.79. The court found that the government’s position was not substantially justified at each stage of this litigation. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs under the EAJA. The court found that the EAJA statutory rate, adjusted for regional cost of living increases, adequately compensates counsel for the work performed. Petitioner also sought fees for work performed by a paralegal. The court wrote that a review of district court cases analyzing the prevailing rate for paralegals in Louisiana under the EAJA reveals a range of $75/hr to $100/hr. In light of the paralegal’s experience,the court found that a rate of $100/hr appears appropriate. View "Nkenglefac v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without authorization in 2000. In 2017, Petitioner accidentally hit a pedestrian with her car and then fled the scene. She entered a guilty plea to Texas Transportation Code Sec. 550.021 and was sentenced to five years’ deferred adjudication.While on deferred adjudication, the Department of Homeland Security arrested Petitioner and charged her with being present without admission or parole under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In 2020, Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal with the immigration court; she also requested voluntary departure. The Immigration Judge denied her application, finding her 2017 conviction was for a crime of moral turpitude, rendering her ineligible for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed and denied Petitioner's motion to reconsider.In reviewing Petitioner's claim, the BIA applied outdated precedent. Under controlling precedent, outlined in Mathis v. United States, 579 U.S. 500 (2016), the proper focus is on the minimum conduct prohibited by the statute, not on the Petitioner's particular actions. Here, The minimum conduct that can trigger liability is the failure to remain at the scene of the accident and provide one’s name and other information. However, this question was not addressed by the BIA. Thus, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded to determine whether the failure to share information under Sec. 550.021(a)(4) is a CIMT. View "Zamaro-Silvero v. Garland" on Justia Law

At issue is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia would recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens when neither spouse was domiciled in that nation at the time of the divorce. The question arises from Petitioner’s marriage to a woman after the woman and another man — both Ghanaian citizens — divorced pursuant to Ghanaian customary law. At the time of the divorce, the woman and man were lawful permanent residents of the United States, and neither was present or domiciled in Ghana. Based on his marriage to the woman, Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident of the United States. But when Petitioner applied to become a naturalized citizen, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that he and the woman were not validly married. USCIS reasoned that under controlling Virginia law, the Commonwealth would not recognize a divorce granted by a nation where neither spouse was domiciled at the time of the divorce. Petitioner sought a review of the decision in the district court, which granted summary judgment to USCIS. Petitioner then brought this appeal.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner’s naturalization application. The court concluded as a matter of comity, Virginia would recognize this otherwise valid divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens, regardless of the citizens’ domicile at the time. The court explained it rejected only USCIS’s argument that pursuant to present Virginia law, the Commonwealth would refuse to recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens simply because neither was domiciled in the foreign nation at the time of the divorce. View "Michael Adjei v. Alejandro Mayorkas" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her daughter were removed in absentia by the Immigration Judge ("IJ"). Petitioner sought relief, citing non-receipt of the hearing notice. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ's decision.The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to remove Petitioner and her daughter in absentia, finding that the IJ should have determined the credibility of Petitioner's claims of non-receipt of her hearing notice in light of all the circumstantial and corroborating evidence in the record. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), an in absentia order may be rescinded upon a motion to reopen if the alien demonstrates non-receipt of the notice statutorily required for removal hearings. The Ninth Circuit found that there was circumstantial evidence supporting Petitioner's claim that she did not receive the hearing notice. View "IDANIA PEREZ-PORTILLO, ET AL V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law