These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the issuance of a final removal order (after service of a defective Notice to Appear) does not trigger the stop-time rule for purposes of cancellation of removal.
The full text of Cantor v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/03/19-73085.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a Connecticut conviction for possession intent to sell/transportation/manufacture/offer a controlled substance is an aggravated felony and a controlled substance violation.
The full text of Chery v. Garland can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that when evaluating whether an applicant for protection under the Convention Against Torture has demonstrated a clear probability of torture, the agency must evaluate the aggregate risk of torture. “[W]e adopt the aggregate risk approach for the determination of substantial risk and hold that the agency may address risk factors individually so long as it considers all sources of and reasons for risk cumulatively to determine whether there is a substantial risk of torture,”
The full text of Nyandwi v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has reaffirmed that “women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships” are not a cognizable particular social group, even under the standard articulated in Matter of A-R-C-G-.
The full text of Jaco v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60081-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has concluded that Immigration Judges have the inherent authority to terminate removal proceedings, and that the Attorney General’s contrary decision in Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- is not entitled to deference.
The full text of Chavez Gonzalez v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/201924.P.pdf
The Third Circuit has reinstated an Immigration Judge’s grant of protection under the Convention Against Torture to a Guatemalan woman fleeing gender violence. In so doing, the court noted that the Board of Immigration Appeals erroneously conducted a de novo review of the Judge’s factual findings, instead of reviewing them for clear error.
The full text of Arreaga Bravo v. Attorney General can be found here
https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203300p.pdf
A clarified opinion can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a petition for the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to determine if the 30-day filing deadline for a BIA appeal should be equitably tolled for a medically vulnerable detainee whose appeal was filed during the COVID pandemic.
The full text of James v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a respondent who enters the United States as a refugee, adjusts status one year later retroactive to the date of admission, and is then convicted of an aggravated felony, is not statutorily barred from seeking a 212(h) waiver.
The full text of Matter of N-V-G- can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has again determined that a Notice to Appear that is lacking the time and date of the first removal hearing does not deprive the Immigration Court of jurisdiction. The Board also noted that parole terminates when a respondent is served with a Notice to Appear, even if it is missing the time and date information. The Board then engaged in a very troublesome analysis of how the termination of parole caused the respondent to resort to her previous status as a person present without admission or parole, making her ineligible for adjustment of status under 245(a) of the INA. This is troubling, as it has long been understood by the courts that expired parole would still meet the “admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment. This case appears to involve someone who was seeing to adjust in a preference category, and therefore, would have also needed to show that she was also maintaining lawful status at the time of her adjustment application. It also involved a person who originally entered without inspection and then was granted parole to testify in a criminal proceeding. Both of these facts could distinguish this case from that of a person who presented herself at a port of entry and was paroled in, and who is seeking adjustment as an immediate relative. Nevertheless, practitioners should be aware of the potential ramifications of the parole analysis in this case.
The full text of Matter of Arambula-Bravo can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that Georgia’s simple battery statute is divisible between offensive touching (not a crime of violence) and touching causing injury (a crime of violence). The court also declined to give credit to a state court order “clarifying” the petitioner’s sentence to be a probation-only sentence, finding that the sentence was clearly one that involved a suspended term of incarceration.
The full text of Talamantes v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201915080.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Minnesota possession of a controlled substance conviction is divisible with respect to the identity of the substance, and that a Minnesota second-degree assault conviction is a crime of violence because it requires either the intentional use of violent force or the inducement of fear of immediate bodily harm. The court also determined that the detention of a detainee who obtains a stay of removal from the federal court is governed by 8 USC 1226, not 8 USC 1231.
The full text of Farah v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912462.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an unrepresented litigant sufficiently alerted the Board of Immigration Appeals to the issues on appeal. Petitioner wrote that “the police from my government of Honduras didn’t do nothing to help me.” That statement put the BIA on notice that Petitioner believed the IJ was incorrect in concluding that she had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that the police would be unable or unwilling to protect her. Additionally, Petitioner wrote that ‘the gangs MS-13 there in all the places in Honduras.’ In context, that statement notified the BIA that Petitioner disputed the IJ’s conclusion that she could relocate safely within Honduras.”
The full text of Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/28/20-70187.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that an improperly filed appeal of an in absentia order did not toll the 180-day filing deadline for an exceptional circumstances motion to reopen. “While one could argue that Cui is a victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, she failed to raise any such claim andc ontinues to retain her arguably ineffective counsel before our court on appeal. Because we are limited to reviewing the arguments made in the briefs, we conclude both that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining Cui did not timely file a motion to reopen, and that the BIA did not commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her removal proceedings.”
The full text of Cui v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/23/18-72030.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that Washington convictions for second degree robbery and attempted second degree robbery are not theft-related aggravated felonies because Washington defines accomplice liability in a broader fashion than federal law. The concurring opinion by Judge England suggests that no Washington conviction may qualify as an aggravated felony because of this overbroad definition of accomplice liability.
The full text of Alfred v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/22/19-72903.pdf
The Ninth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in this case on 6/3/22:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/03/19-72903_enbanc_order.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that when the Department of Homeland Security produces a probation report that contains a victim’s narrative, it must make a good faith effort to produce both the drafter of the report and the victim for cross-examination.
The full text of Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/16/15-71553.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/12/14/15-71553.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for child endangerment in violation of Penal Code 273A(a) is not a crime of child abuse.
The full text of Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/10/13-73719.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the agency must only reference a petitioner’s mental illness during a particularly serious crime analysis if the petitioner presents evidence attributing the crime to mental illness. The court also determined that the agency was not required to terminate proceedings for a mentally ill petitioner who physically attacked his qualified representative and who refused to cooperate in any document collection efforts made by his representative.
The full text of Benedicto v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/09/18-73237.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an individual subject to a reinstated removal order may not seek asylum, even if there are changed circumstances since the entry of the original removal order.
The full text of Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/07/18-72692.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has abrogated its prior rule that it must uphold an adverse credibility determination if just one factor cited by the agency is supported by substantial evidence. The court determined that the REAL ID Act requires a “totality of the circumstances” analysis of the credibility determination. “There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination—our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances. To the extent that our precedents employed the single factor rule or are otherwise inconsistent with this standard, we overrule those cases.” The concurring opinion suggests several other “judge-made rules” that Judge Bennett believes should be revisited.
The full text of Alam v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/08/19-72744.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has determined that U visa applicants may bring unreasonable delay claims related to USCIS’ failure to adjudicate their applications for waitlist purposes and failure to make a bona fide determination on their applications. However, the court cannot compel USCIS to adjudicate pre-waitlist employment authorization applications.
“Nor are we persuaded that USCIS’s release of its average U-visa-application processing time should prompt us to decide that Plaintiffs’ years-long wait is reasonable. The average adjudication time says little about the unreasonableness of USCIS’s delay in Plaintiffs’ case; this number also does not alter how most (if not all) U-visa adjudications might be unreasonably delayed. We find it unhelpful to fixate on the average snail’s pace when comparing snails against snails in a snails’ race.”
The full text of Barrios Garcia v. DHS can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0217p-06.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0027p-06.pdf
