These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
Tenth Circuit
The Tenth Circuit has determined that if a non-citizen is granted voluntary departure, and wishes to file a motion to reopen, he must do so by the 60th day of his voluntary departure period, even if that day falls on a weekend.
The full text of Velazquez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110915861.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110969149.pdf
The Tenth Circuit, in assuming that DHS violated certain regulations during their apprehension of a non-citizen, determined that the non-citizen did not suffer any prejudice by being required to litigate his adjustment of status application before an immigration judge rather than before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Mr. Aguayo emphasizes adjustment hearings in immigration court are procedurally different from non-adversarial USCIS interviews because a petitioner appears in front of the IJ ‘in a pastel jumpsuit’ and is ‘cross-examined in an adversarial courtroom by trained government lawyers, while in confinement apart from family.’ As a general matter, we are sympathetic to Mr. Aguayo’s contention. But whether the adversarial nature of immigration court potentially affected or actually affected the outcome of removal proceedings is not self-evident. As the government points out, Mr. Aguayo had ‘a full opportunity to present his case for adjustment of status before the IJ,’ and he does not argue ‘he would have submitted more or different evidence to USCIS than he presented to the IJ.’ The BIA correctly determined Mr. Aguayo ‘speculates’ but ‘provides no evidence that USCIS would have approved his adjustment application.’”
The full text of Aguayo v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110905064.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has reaffirmed that a petition for review (PFR) challenging a reinstatement order is timely if it is filed within 30 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision at the end of the ensuing withholding/CAT only proceeding. The PFR need be filed within 30 days of ICE’s issuance of the reinstatement order.
The full text of Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110897188.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a federal district court has jurisdiction to review USCIS’s decision to terminate refugee status.
The full text of Mukantagara v. DHS can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110860407.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that the reinstatement provision at 8 USC 1231(a)(5) prevents reconsideration of a removal order. The court also found that a prior reinstatement of the order is sufficient to trigger this bar, even if the order has not been again reinstated since the petitioner’s most recent illegal entry.
The full text of Zapata-Chacon v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110758299.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that the issuance of a final removal order does not trigger the stop-time rule for cancellation of removal.
The full text of Estrada-Cardona can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110725741.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that “the acts of violence are so widespread that any reasonable adjudicator would find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
The full text of Gonzalez Aguilar v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110663824.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has affirmed that the agency lacks authority to reopen a reinstated removal order. In this case, the petitioner was a lawful permanent resident who was ordered removed (and physically removed) due to a felony animal cruelty conviction. After his removal, a state court vacated the conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and reinstated the original charges. The petitioner sought reopening of his removal order, which the Immigration Judge denied because the criminal charges were still reinstated and remained pending. The petitioner then unlawfully reentered the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his removal order. Subsequently, he pled to misdemeanor animal cruelty, which was not a deportable offense, and filed a second motion to reopen, which the agency declined to grant because his removal order had already been reinstated. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the reinstatement barred reopening, and that the petitioner had forfeited his right to reopening by reentering illegally. Moreover, the court declined to find a “gross miscarriage of justice” exception to the bar to reopening reinstated orders, and further opined that even if such an exception existed, it would not apply to this case, because the petitioner’s conviction was vacated after he was removed. Finally, the court declined to extend nunc pro tunc relief with respect to the first motion to reopen, which was filed before the petitioner reentered the United States, finding that nunc pro tunc relief is an equitable remedy, which was barred by the petitioner’s “unclean hands.”
The full text of Tarango-Delgado v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110613259.pdf
The Tenth Circuit, while assuming that family could be a valid particular social group, rejected an asylum claim where the “gang was threatening family members as a means to achieve an end that was unrelated to a protected ground.” The court recognized its decision was contrary to Fourth Circuit precedent involving a similar fact pattern.
The full text of Orellana Recinas v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-9596.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has affirmed a removal order against a student visa holder who failed to maintain a full course of study while he was incarcerated pending trial, despite the fact that he was subsequently acquitted at trial.
The full text of Awuku-Asare v. Garland can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Utah terroristic threats conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude. “We hold that recklessly threatening substantial property damage with the intent of interrupting public access to a portion of a building is a CIMT.” The court also affirmed Matter of G-G-S- and determined that the agency need not consider a petitioner’s mental health when determining whether the petitioner has been convicted of a particularly serious crime.
The full text of the extremely sad case of Birhanu v. Wilkinson can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has reversed the agency’s determination that a Ghanian asylum seeker could safely relocate within Ghana to escape harm from a rival tribe. “The government has offered no evidence that Atwode are not present in other Ghanaian cities to which it would have Petitioner relocate. And more importantly, the government has no evidence linking the Atwode’s ability to track and threaten Petitioner in Accra with the ‘presence’ of Atwode migrants in that city. The government has thus failed to satisfy its burden to show that Petitioner’s experience in Accra––where he apparently was tracked, threatened, and shot at by Atwode as he moved from address to address––could not be duplicated in other parts of Ghana.”
The full text of Addo v. Barr can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has rejected an attempt to establish jurisdiction over the denial of a cancellation of removal application based on insufficient hardship. The court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla but found that it still did not permit the court to reweigh the hardship evidence.
The full text of Galeano-Romero v. Barr can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Colorado statute criminalizing possession of a controlled substance is more overbroad and indivisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance. Instead, the court found that the different schedules of drugs are elements, but the individual substances listed on any given schedule are merely alternative means.
The full text of Johnson v. Barr can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the regulatory departure bar does not prevent the Immigration Judge from exercising his sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. The departure bar applies only to a motion to reopen filed by one of the parties, which differs from an Immigration Judge’s authority to sua sponte reopen proceedings. ‘Thus, the IJ may move sua sponte to reopen removal proceedings even when either or both the ninety-day time bar or the post-departure bar would defeat an alien’s ‘motion to reopen’.”
The full text of Reyes-Vargas v. Barr can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit has rejected a two-step stop time rule for cancellation of removal. Service of a Notice to Appear that lacks the time of the first removal hearing does not trigger the stop time rule, and the rule is still not triggered when the Immigration Court issues a hearing notice that contains this information. “d. In our view, the stop-time rule is triggered by one complete notice to appear rather than a combination of documents.”
The full text of Banuelos-Galviz v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-9517.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has reaffirmed that a Notice to Appear missing the time and date of the first hearing is not jurisdictionally deficient, but rather, presents a claim-processing rule violation. A party may bring a timely request for dismissal based on a deficient Notice to Appear. The court remanded the case for the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine if it has the authority to freeze the age of a qualifying relative on the date an application for cancellation of removal is filed when there is undue delay on the part of the agency in adjudicating the application. In the instant case, the applicant’s daughter turned 21 after the court continued his case 5 times on its own motion, delaying adjudication of his adjudication for six years.
The full text of Martinez-Perez v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-9573.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has remanded a withholding of removal claim for further analysis of whether the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo engages in a pattern and practice of persecution of political dissidents.
The full text of Matumona v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-9579.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a conviction under the Aurora, Colorado Municipal Code is overbroad and divisible with respect to the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the petitioner could not prove that her conviction was under a subsection that did not match the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude, the court concluded that she had not met her burden of proving eligibility of cancellation for removal for nonlawful permanent residents.
The full text of Robles-Garcia v. Barr can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-9511.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that a Notice to Appear that fails to specify the time and date of the first removal hearing does not deprive an Immigration Judge of jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.
The full text of Lopez-Munoz v. Barr can be found here:
