Viewing entries in
New Case Law

Comment

Eighth Circuit Reverses Finding that Iowa Conviction for Enticing a Minor is a Crime of Child Abuse

The Eighth Circuit has reversed the agency’s finding that an Iowa conviction for enticing a minor is a crime of child abuse. In so doing, the court noted that to obtain a conviction under this statute, the State must prove that the defendant (1) enticed a person reasonably believed to be under the age of sixteen, and (2) did so with the intent to commit an illegal act upon a minor. “The intended ‘illegal act’ need not be the act that entices the minor. The element of enticement speaks only to how the offender draws a minor into a position where the minor could be subjected to an illegal act. It does not address what sort of intended illegal act would satisfy the second element of the offense. Enticement may be accomplished, for example, simply by asking a minor to help find a lost puppy, regardless of what the offender intends to do next. Looking only at the plain text of the Iowa statute, we cannot exclude the possibility that an offender could be prosecuted for enticing a minor with intent to commit disorderly conduct or harassment upon a minor. ”

The full text of Peh v. Garland can be found here:

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/07/201508P.pdf

Comment

Comment

Eighth Circuit Affirms Denial of Asylee Adjustment Application

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the agency’s denial of an asylee adjustment of status application, finding that the issue of whether the petitioner provided material support to terrorism was not actually litigated during his asylum proceeding in the Immigration Court. Thus, the government was not issue precluded from denying the adjustment on terrorism grounds.

The full text of Fofana v. Mayorkas can be found here:

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/07/201623P.pdf

Comment

Comment

Sixth Circuit Declines to Reopen Reinstated Removal Order

The Sixth Circuit has declined to reopen a removal order issued against a lawful permanent resident who subsequently vacated the conviction that served as the basis of removal. The court declined to find that a reinstated can be reopened, even if there is a showing of a gross miscarriage of justice in the underlying removal order. Moreover, because the petitioner did not vacate the conviction until after he was removed, there was no gross miscarriage of justice.

The full text of Sanchez-Gonzalez v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0161p-06.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Finds TX Drug Conviction to be Aggravated Felony

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Texas statute criminalizing manufacture or delivery of cocaine (which includes an offer to sell cocaine) is an aggravated felony. The court noted that the statute requires an intent to sell, which is analogous to the intent to the distribute found in the federal Controlled Substances Act. The court recognized that its decision creates a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on solicitation offenses.

The full text of Ochoa-Salgado v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60519-CV0.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fifth Circuit Rejects Adverse Credibility Determination

The Fifth Circuit has rejected an adverse credibility determination rendered by an Immigration Judge with a 99.5% denial rate, based on perceived similarities between the petitioner’s claim and other asylum claims. “Here, the IJ did not compare the petition to specific applications, instead orally describing an amalgam of applications that she had previously seen. Nor did the IJ identify’ a substantial number of instances where the same or remarkably similar language is used to describe the same kind of incident or encounter. As a result, Singh could not meaningfully compare the language and narratives, produce evidence to explain the similarities, or draw attention to important distinctions. A composite description provides only a distillation of several petitions and a glimpse into the mind of the IJ, an insufficient foundation for the fine-grained comparisons that are needed for inter-proceeding similarities to have probative value. For the same reasons, it precludes the BIA and appellate courts from engaging in the searching review that interproceeding similarities require.”

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

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60937-CV0.pdf

Comment

Comment

Fourth Circuit Finds Jurisdiction to Review Hardship Determination

The Fourth Circuit has determined that whether an applicant for cancellation of removal has proven exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative is a mixed question of fact and law that can be reviewed by a federal appellate court. Unfortunately, the court affirmed the denial, finding that the petitioner’s four children (including one with a diagnosed anxiety disorder) would not suffer the requisite hardship if he was removed.

The full text of Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201485.P.pdf

Comment

Comment

Third Circuit Overturns Negative Reasonable Fear Determination

The Third Circuit has overturn a two phrase negative fear determination, finding that it is insufficient for appellate review. The Immigration Judge decision stated, ““R not targeted on account of protected ground. Government is willing to assist.”

“A two-sentence recitation on a bulletpoint form will rarely, if ever, provide sufficient reasoning for a decision. A decision, such as the one here, that does not refer to record evidence will never suffice.”

The full text of Valarezo-Tirado v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/201705pa.pdf

An amended decision can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/201705pa2.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Deems California Forgery Offense to Categorically be Aggravated Felony

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California forgery statute is a categorical match to the definition of a forgery aggravated felony. “Thus, by definition, § 470a requires proof of a false writing capable of procuring fraud. A person who takes the affirmative step to photocopy a genuine document with the intent to deceive has made a false instrument—an action that falls squarely within the generic definition of forgery.”

The full text of Escobar Santos v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/09/17-72334.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Finds that Release by CBP at Checkpoint is not Admission

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner who held temporary resident status, and who stopped at a Customs and Border Patrol checkpoint and subsequently released after showing his temporary resident card, was not admitted to the United States by virtue of this encounter. Admission, instead, requires presentation at a port of entry followed by entry with government consent. The court did clarify that “noncitizens factually admitted to the United States at a U.S. port of entry while they hold temporary resident status under § 1255a(a) do not magically become unadmitted once their temporary resident status ends.”

The full text of Posos Sanchez v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/07/17-72002.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Votes to Rehear Reinstatement Case En Banc

The Ninth Circuit has voted for en banc rehearing of a case involving the definition of “illegal reentry” for reinstatement purposes.

The order granting rehearing en banc in Tomczyk v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/07/06/16-72926.pdf

My blog post on the original decision can be found here:
http://www.sabrinadamast.com/journal/2021/2/12/ninth-circuit-clarifies-the-meaning-of-illegal-reentry-for-reinstatement-purposes

Comment

Comment

Fourth Circuit Remands Family-Based Asylum Claim

Continuing its streak of truly excellent asylum decisions, the Fourth Circuit has remanded an asylum application premised on a family particular social group, finding that “the gang targeted Petitioner, and not some other person, because of her familial relationship to her husband, who sent her money from the United States every month.”

The full text of Perez Vasquez v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/191954.P.pdf

Comment

Comment

SCOTUS Finds that Reckless Crimes do not Qualify as Violent Felonies

The Supreme Court has determined that a reckless offense does not qualify as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Because the definition of a violent felony under the ACCA and a crime of violence under the INA are often treated interchangeably, this decision should be applicable in immigration proceedings.

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-5410_8nj9.pdf

Comment

Comment

SCOTUS Finds that TPS is not an Admission

The Supreme Court has determined that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not, in and of itself, render a non-citizen “admitted” to the United States. The Court did not reach the question of whether a TPS holder who travels on parole would be considered “admitted or paroled” for the purpose of adjustment of status. In addition, the decision contains some very worrisome language implying that a grant of a U visa would not qualify as admission.

The full text of Sanchez v. Mayorkas can be found here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-315_q713.pdf

Comment

Comment

BIA Construes Changed Circumstances Exception to Asylum Filing Deadline

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an applicant who merely continues an activity in the United States that is substantially similar to the activity from which an initial claim of past persecution is alleged and that does not significantly increase the risk of future harm has not established changed circumstances that would excuse an untimely asylum application.

“The activity the respondent engaged in while in the United States— emailing Christian proselytizing messages to people in China—is substantially similar to the actions he undertook in China and represents a continuation of those religious activities without a significant change. The fact that the respondent continued his proselytizing activities after he entered the United States (albeit through a different medium) does not support a finding of changed circumstances since it was this very activity (proselytizing) in China that led him to leave his country originally. The respondent does not allege that he became involved in new activities related to Christianity in the United States; nor does his activity in this country raise a claim for asylum under a separate protected ground or on the basis of a newly articulated claim of future persecution. On the contrary, the respondent’s present claim remains premised on the same fear of the Chinese authorities he possessed prior to coming to the United States, as well as the same protected ground, and therefore does not adequately set forth a change in the respondent’s particular circumstances. Further, while the emails the respondent distributed may have generated renewed interest from the authorities, the record does not reflect that the respondent’s risk of persecution in China increased as a result of his email correspondence such that his claim to asylum, based on his activity in the United States, is significantly changed from his claim of past harm. In essence, it is the same claim he could have made during the 1-year period after he entered the United States.”

The full text of Matter of D-G-C- can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1401876/download

Comment

Comment

BIA Applies Circumstance Specific Analysis to SIJS Waiver

The Board of Immigration Appeals has confirmed that INA section 245(h)(2)(B) can be used to waive inadmissibility related to a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana. The Board indicated that the circumstance specific approach should be used to determine the amount of marijuana at issue.

The full text of Matter of Moradel can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1405696/download

Comment

Comment

BIA Permits Rescission of In Absentia when Respondent was Late to Court Due to Severe Inclement Weather

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge has discretion to rescind an in absentia removal order when the respondent was late for her court hearing to severe inclement weather.

“In determining whether an alien has established exceptional circumstances, the “totality of the circumstances pertaining to the alien’s case should be considered. How late the alien arrives for her scheduled court appearance is a significant factor to consider, along with the reason(s) for her tardiness, in the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances approach may also take into account any other factors relevant to the alien’s individual case. For example, an alien’s young age may be relevant where there are multiple impediments to attending the removal hearing. Other factors, such as prior attendance at hearings, eligibility for relief from removal, and promptness in filing the motion to reopen may shed light on whether the alien intended to appear on time or otherwise had an incentive to do so.”

“In Matter of S-A-, we did not create a per se rule that traffic conditions cannot be an acceptable reason for a tardy appearance at a hearing. Instead, this Board held that an alien’s uncorroborated general statements will generally be insufficient to meet the burden of proof to establish reasonable cause for a late appearance. We reaffirm this holding. We also take this opportunity to clarify and extend the evidentiary framework in Matter of S-A- to proceedings falling under the exceptional circumstances standard, because this Board has not yet addressed this standard.“

“Pursuant to our de novo review, we conclude that the female respondent has established exceptional circumstances for her tardy appearance under the totality of the circumstances. Where an alien appears late to a removal hearing as a result of weather and traffic conditions, he or she may establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant reopening the removal proceedings where the extent of the tardiness was reasonable given the cause of the delay, the circumstances causing the tardiness were appropriately exceptional on a case-by-case basis, the weather and traffic conditions were not foreseeable, and the alien provided sufficient documentation corroborating the cause of the tardiness. Other factors, such as any prior affirmative application for relief, previous attendance at Immigration Court hearings, and other evidence indicating that the alien intended to appear at the hearing, may support an exceptional circumstances claim.”

“On this record, we conclude that she presented appropriately exceptional circumstances for her tardiness. As the female respondent does not drive, she hired a professional driver, upon whom she relied to arrive at the courtroom on time. Despite this planning, she was tardy because of a snow storm, which caused multiple accidents and severe traffic on several major thoroughfares in Ohio on the morning of her hearing. Moreover, weather reports indicated that the temperature was lower than usual for the time of year. These severe weather and traffic conditions are distinguishable from the ordinary or foreseeable traffic delays at issue in Matter of S-A-. Further, the female respondent’s corroborating information—including the affidavits and the weather and traffic reports—provided sufficient details documenting the reasons for her tardiness.”

The full text of Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1408006/download

Comment