CA Court of Appeals Finds that Asylee did not Meaningfully Understand Consequences of Plea

The California Court of Appeals, Second District, has determined that an asylee with a history of mental illness did not meaningfully understand the mandatory immigration consequences of his plea, when his defense counsel’s notes indicated a discussion only about potential consequences. The court made this finding despite the execution of a plea form advising the defendant that his plea would cause immigration consequences, and despite the prosecutor stating during the plea colloquy that the District Attorney’s Office would not offer an immigration neutral plea in the matter.

“Padron’s declaration and his public defender’s case notes both support that Padron was unaware his conviction carried these mandatory immigration consequences. Padron attested his attorney did not inquire into his immigration status or discuss ‘all of the immigration consequences of my conviction.’ According to the case notes, Padron’s public defender advised only of unspecified, ‘potential’ immigration consequences. Counsel’s notes reflect Padron received this advice on the date of the plea hearing, although counsel discussed a potential plea deal more than two weeks before. The notes also do not reflect Padron’s attorney knew of his asylum status or consulted any relevant immigration resources. Under these circumstances, counsel’s ‘failure to give accurate and complete advice about the specific consequences of the plea agreement,’ including mandatory detention, denial of naturalization, and deportation to a country the immigration court had found subjected Padron to persecution, was error impeding Padron’s ability to understand and knowingly accept the consequences of his no-contest plea.”

The court remanded the case with orders that the trial court grant the motion to vacate.

The full text of People v. Padron can be found here:

http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0325//B331764

SCOTUS Finds that Bodily Harm Caused by Omission still Requires Force

The Supreme Court has determined that a conviction that requires the infliction of bodily harm through an omission still requires the type of intentional violent force required by the definition of a crime of violence.

The full text of Delligatti v. United States can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-825_q713.pdf

BIA Determines that State Law and Ground of Removability Should be Compared at Time of Conviction

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the language of a state conviction and an asserted ground of deportability (in this case, a controlled substance violation) should be compared as they were written at the time of the non-citizen’s conviction. Thus, any post-conviction revisions to the Controlled Substance Act were not relevant to whether the non-citizen was deportable.

The full text of Matter of Dor can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-03/4088.pdf

BIA Finds that Declaration is not Required Component of Asylum Application

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a declaration is not a required component of an asylum application, and as such, an Immigration Judge may not deem an asylum application abandoned for failure to file a declaration.

“This does not mean that Immigration Judges cannot require an applicant to submit a declaration, or that an applicant can disregard a directive from an Immigration Judge to file one. Immigration Judges may require applicants to submit declarations in support of asylum applications, and to do so within a specified time, just as they have the authority to direct submission of briefs, evidence, and other papers, and to set and enforce deadlines for doing so. However, a declaration supplements an asylum application without forming a constituent part of it. Therefore, the remedy for failing to file one when so directed is limited to the declaration (or other supplemental document) itself. If a supplemental document is not timely filed, the opportunity to file it is waived. In some instances, the failure to file a document may be dispositive. But the effect of an absent declaration or other supplemental document goes to the merits of the application, not its completeness.”

The full text of Matter of C-A-R-R- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2025-03/4087_0.pdf

Eleventh Circuit finds no Jurisdiction to Review USCIS Delay of Retrogressed Adjustment

The Eleventh Circuit has found that federal courts lack jursidiction to review USCIS’s policy of deferring adjudication of an adjustment of application when the underlying visa category has retrogressed. “We conclude that the challenged USCIS action here—delaying the grant of Form I-485 applications when the Department of State indicates that annual visa limits have been reached—falls within § 1255(a)’s statutory grant of discretion. And challenges to that delay are barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).”

The full text of Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS can be found here:

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202312826.pdf

Ninth Circuit Upholds Adverse Credibility Determination Based on Near Verbatim Repetition as Well as Factual Similarities to Other Asylum Claims

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the agency may permissibly render an adverse credibility determination when an asylum claim presents not only similar factual circumstances to multiple other cases, but nearly identifical word choice and narrative structure. “The upshot is that the linguistic, narrative, and factual similarities between Singh’s declaration and the declarations presented by DHS go beyond mere coincidence and cannot be explained away by the fact that these petitioners lived in similar situations in India. At a minimum, the IJ could so reasonably conclude. The narratives are nearly identical and, in some instances, are delivered with word-for-word repetition.”

The full text of Singh v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/17/23-1247.pdf

Eighth Circuit Rejects Petitioner's Challenge to North Dakota Marijuana Statute

The Eighth Circuit has rejected a non-citizen’s argument that she is not deportable for a controlled substance violation because the North Dakota statute in effect at the time of her conviction included hemp in the definition of marijuana while the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings excluded hemp. The Court also rejected the argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana is overbroad as compared to the federal definition because the federal definition includes only “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.,” while the North Dakota definition is not limited to a specific species, finding that the federal definition of cannabis extended to all “marihuana-producing Cannabis.”

The full text of Salinas v. Bondi can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/25/03/232779P.pdf

First Circuit Rejects Agency's Hardship Determination

The First Circuit has remanded a cancellation of removal case, finding that the agency failed to evaluate how the qualifying relative’s specific learning disabilities would influence the hardship he would suffer if his parents were deported.

The full text of Duarte de Martinez v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1057P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit Holds that Washington Conviction for First-Degree Child Molestation is Abusive Sexual Conduct Involving a Minor

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Washington conviction for first-degree child molestation is a categorical match to the definition of abusive sexual conduct involving a minor for federal sentencing purposes because it involves sexual touching with minors under twelve years old. Given the alignment between the definition of abusive sexual conduct for sentencing purposes and a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony, this case will have impact on immigration proceedings as well.

The full text of U.S. v. Thompson can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/10/23-2288.pdf

Ninth Circuit Permits Listing of A Numbers to Identify Petitioners in PFR

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner’s A number is sufficient identification in a petition for review to comply with the federal rules of appellate procedure. “These ‘A’ numbers are not generic terms referencing unknown and potentially unidentifiable individuals, such as the procedural titles listed in the text of Rule 15, but rather correspond to specific persons who have raised claims before the agency for adjudication and whose names are readily available in the government’s own records, including BIA orders which must be submitted to this court with the petition for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 15-4. “

The full text of Perez-Perez v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/10/23-4240.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that Roma are a Disfavored Group in Romania

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Roma are a disfavored ethnic group in Romania for asylum and withholding of removal purposes. The Court also reaffirmed that shootings, attempted kidnappings, and attempted rapes are all forms of physical harm that almost always rise to the level of persecution.

The full text of Lapadat v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/12/23-1745.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds Oregon Conviction for First Degree Criminal Mistreatment is CIMT and Oregon Conviction for Unlawful Possession of Weapon is Firearms Offense

The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Oregon conviction for first degree criminal mistreatment is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires knowingly depriving a dependent of basic care.

The Court also found that an Oregon conviction for unlawful possession of a weapon is overbroad as compared to a deportable firearms offense because the statute criminalizes possession of antique firearms. However, the statute is divisible between various subsections, some of which do not involve antique firearms. These subsections match the definition of a deportabel firearms offense.

The Court also overruled its prior precedent that a grant of SIJS constitutes an admission for cancellation of removal purposes.

The full text of Murillo-Chavez v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/02/13/21-1422.pdf

Sixth Ciruit Finds that Hardship Determination for Waiver is not Reviewable

The Sixth Circuit has determined that the agency’s hardship determinations related to an unlawful presence waiver (212(a)(9)(B)(v)) and a fraud waiver (212(i)) are not reviewable by a federal court. Unlike the hardship determination for a cancellation of removal case, which is a mixed question of fact and law, hardship determinations related to these waivers are committed exclusively to the Attorney General.

The full text of Rahman v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0058p-06.pdf

Third Circuit Applies Substantial Evidence Standard to Hardship Review

The Third Circuit has determined that the substantial evidence standard applies to a federal court’s review of the agency’s hardship finding in a cancellation of removal case.

The full text of Wilkinson v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/213166p.pdf

Second Circuit Disapproves of Paroling LPR Facing CIMT Charges

The Second Circuit has determined that Homeland Security may not parole a returning lawful permanent resident based solely on pending charges for a crime involving moral turpitude. “Here, we are presented with the question of whether DHS may parole an LPR at the border who has been charged with – but not yet convicted of – a CIMT. In analyzing this question, we heed Centurion’s holding that an LPR becomes an alien applying for admission for purposes of section 1101(a)(13)(C) upon the commission, rather than the conviction, of a crime. But we are also cognizant of the reality that, without a conviction, DHS will be hard pressed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the LPR actually committed the crime in question at the time of reentry. If DHS fails to sustain its burden of proving otherwise, the default presumption governs that an LPR is not an applicant for admission”

“Critically, the INA does not provide that an LPR may be treated as seeking admission when he has been ‘charged with a crime’ or is ‘believed to have committed a crime;’ it permits such treatment only when an LPR ‘has committed’ a crime. And because DHS bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a returning [LPR] is to be regarded as seeking an admission, we do not see how charging documents alone – without more – could carry DHS’s burden of demonstrating that a crime had been committed at the time of an LPR’s reentry.”

The full text of Lau v. Bondi can be found here:

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9fb1ca2c-a88a-4517-8f92-8c712c43b46f/13/doc/21-6623_opn.pdf

Second Circuit Remands Political Opinion Asylum Claim

The Second Circuit has remanded the asylum claim of a Chinese national who was detained and beaten for protesting government housing demolition policies. The Court was unpersuaded by the agency’s conclusion that the petitioner was the target of a legitimate prosecution, rather prosecution, when he had not been charged with any crime.

The full text of Tian v. Bondi can be found here:

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9fb1ca2c-a88a-4517-8f92-8c712c43b46f/11/doc/22-6053_opn.pdf

Second Circuit Finds that NY Second Degree Attempted Assault is Crime of Violence

The Second Circuit has determined that a New York conviction for second degree attempted assault under NYPL 120.05(7) is a crime of violence because it requires physical force causing injury to another person. Given the similarity between the definition of a crime of violence for immigration and criminal sentencing purposes, this case will likely be treated as precedential for immigration purposes as well.

The full text of U.S. v. Cooper can be found here:

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9fb1ca2c-a88a-4517-8f92-8c712c43b46f/3/doc/23-6911_opn.pdf

Second Circuit Weighs in on Procedural Safeguards for Incompetent Respondent

The Second Circuit has determined that an Immigration Judge must “explain the adequacy of the safeguards implemented with reference to the character, scope, and severity of the noncitizen’s disabilities.” “Without reference to the character, scope, and severity of the incompetency to proceed absent safeguards, a [reviewing] court is stymied in its ability to evaluate the adequacy of the chosen safeguards.”

“Faced with substantial evidence of disabilities supporting the possibility that Reid was incompetent to continue without safeguards, the IJ did implement a number of safeguards. But the BIA erred in accepting her conclusory assertion, without supporting discussion, that the adopted safeguards were adequate. The record provides no support for that conclusion; it may well have been that additional safeguards to protect Reid’s rights and privileges should have been considered. For our purposes, because the IJ gave no consideration to the character, scope, and severity of Reid’s disabilities, she deprived a reviewing court of the ability to assess the adequacy of the chosen safeguards.”

The full text of Reid v. Bondi can be found here:

https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8db76edb-1f7a-4a01-b7ca-392b391a1aca/1/doc/20-3324_amd_opn.pdf

First Circuit Applies "Clear, Unequivocal, and Convincing" Standard to Alienage

The First Circuit has determined that Homeland Security must prove alienage by "clear, unequivocal, and convincing” evidence, and that this standard is higher than “clear and convincing” evidence.

The full text of Rosa v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1240P-01A.pdf

First Circuit Finds BIA does not have Settled Course of Reopening after Successful Post-Conviction Relief

The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals does not have a settled course of granting motions to reopen filed by former lawful permanent residents who have successful vacated the convictions that underpined their removal orders.

The full text of Phimmady v. Bondi can be found here:

https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1330P-01A.pdf