The Supreme Count has determined that the a conviction may constitute an obstruction justice aggravated felony even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.
The full text of Pugin v. Garland can be found here:
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Supreme Court has determined that Texas and Louisiana have no standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement priorities memo.
The full text of US v. Texas can be found here:
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has determined that the denial of a non-citizen’s visa does not impinge on any fundamental constitutional rights held by the applicant’s U.S.-citizen spouse. The court also found that a mere statutory citation to section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the INA is sufficient to meet the “facially legitimate and bona fide” standard laid out by Justice Kennedy in Kerry v. Din and to shield the visa denial from any further review in federal court under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
The full text of Colindres v. DOS can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to review any factual findings related to a motion to continue proceedings when the findings relate to an applicant’s eligibility for adjustment of status.
The full text of Ochoa v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/20/20-72510.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/02/06/20-72510.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Montana conviction for partner of family member assault is not a crime of violence because it includes the infliction of mental anguish.
The full text of US v. Castro can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/22-30050.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that false claiming to be a U.S. citizen during a criminal arrest to avoid the initiation of removal proceedings does not trigger the false claim to U.S. citizenship inadmissibility bar. In so doing, the Court determined that Matter of Richmond’s analysis to the contrary is unreasonable and is not entitled to any deference. “Thus, for § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I) to bar admission into the United States, the noncitizen must have made the false claim of citizenship to comport with some specific legal requirement. Any federal or state law requiring U.S. citizenship will do, but not simply ‘the immigration laws’ generally. And the noncitizen must have intended to obtain a benefit authorized by or achieve a purpose consistent with the specific law at issue. But a noncitizen does not act in accordance with the law by attempting to evade it.”
The full text of Ramirez Munoz v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/26/21-70431.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that South Korea’s extraterritorial-jurisdiction law, allowing it to re-prosecute its citizens for crimes committed and punished outside of South Korea, is not inherently torturous.
The full text of Park v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/29/21-70623.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to review the denial of a national interest waiver.
The full text of Flores v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-20419-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has sustained the appeal of an asylum applicant who fears he would be the victim of a revenge killing by gang members because his brother refused to cooperate with the gang.
The full text of Marvin A.G. v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that an Arkansas conviction for abuse of a corpse is overbroad as compared to the generic definition of a crime involving moral turpitude because it includes the mere removal or disinterment of a corpse.
The full text of Giron-Molina v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that an applicant’s signature creates a rebuttable presumption that they understood the written frivolous asylum warnings on the asylum application. However, if the applicant “plausibly claims and presents credible evidence that he was unable to understand the printed Frivolousness Warning on his signed asylum application, the presumption of understanding established by his signature may not be determinative of notice.”
The full text of Ud Din v. Garland can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit, using an asylum claim with bad facts involving a failed robbery, has issued a terrible decision that could have dramatic consequences for the nexus analysis related to family-based asylum claims. First, the court rejected the proposed social group of “families that lack an immediate family male protector” as lacking social distinction.
Second, the Court indicated that to establish a nexus between her family membership and her harm, Rodriguez-Zuniga must show that her family membership was a reason motivating the robber to target her. Where the record indicates that the persecutor’s actual motivation for threatening a person is to extort money from a third person, the record does not compel finding that the persecutor threatened the target because of a protected characteristic such as family relation. In such a situation, the extorted person may be motivated to give the money because they care for their family member, but that doesn’t transform the persecutor’s motivation from money to actual animus against a protected characteristic.
This analysis seems to totally undermine any possibility of establishing a nexus to family membership for a relative threatened with harm in order to coerce another relative into paying extortion - a classic family-based asylum scenario to date.
In addition, the Court reviewed the nexus determination for substantial evidence. Recent case law indicates that the Board of Immigration Appeals should review the nexus determination de novo, which suggests that the nexus question may be a question of law, not a question of fact. If it is, indeed, a question of law, then it would be subject to de novo review at the federal court level as well. This may be an interesting issue to bring up in a request for rehearing.
The full text of Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/19-72024.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has remanded a case for further analysis of whether a Washington conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle is a crime involving moral turpitude, in light of changes to mens rea requirement in the statute. Although the Board of Immigration Appeals has previously held that the statute is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude in Matter of Ruiz-Lopez, since that time, the legislature has changed the mens rea from “wanton or willful disregard for the lives or property of others” to mere recklessness.
The full text of Zhovtonizhko v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/21-584.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined than an Immigration Judge violated an applicant’s due process rights by deeming his asylum application abandoned without unambiguously setting a filing deadline, especially after his attorney offered to file the application later the same day.
The full text of Arizmendi-Medina v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/06/07/21-298.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Kansas statute criminalizing possession of any opiates, opium or narcotic drugs, or any stimulant is divisible with respect to the identity of the drug.
The full text of Barbosa v. Garland can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Iowa conviction for use or display of a deadly weapon in connection with an assault is a crime of violence because displaying an operational weapon before another in an angry or threatening manner qualifies as a threatened use of physical force.
The full text of United States v. Green can be found here
The Fifth Circuit has affirmed that a Texas conviction for injury to a child in the third degree is a crime of child abuse, rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the definition of harm in the statute is broader than the generic definition of a crime of child abuse.
The full text of Ponce v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60530-CV0.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has determined that a New York conviction for second-degree burglary of a building (as opposed to a dwelling) is overbroad when compared to the definition of a burglary aggravated felony because it criminalizes burglaries of inclosed motor trucks. The statute is also invisible with respect to the definition of a building, so any subsection criminalizing burglary of a building will not meet the definition of a burglary aggravated felony.
The conviction also does not qualify as a theft aggravated felony because it only requires the intent to commit a crime, and there is no requirement that a burglar take property or otherwise exercise control of property without consent.
However, the statute is divisible into different subsections, and the subsection criminalizing the display of a firearm during a burglary is a crime of violence aggravated felony because another person must be present to view the display of the weapon, and that person must feel threatened by the display. Thus, the display of the firearm necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
The analysis pertaining to the crime of violence drew a detailed dissent, attacking the majority’s analysis of New York criminal law.
The full text of Matter of Pougatchev can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania conviction for receipt of stolen property is an aggravated felony, rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the statute’s mens rea is lower than that required by the generic definition of a theft offense.
The full text of Khan v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60146-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who received an NTA with an address bearing a single typo, and who failed to correct the address with the court, is not entitled to written notice of his hearing, even if the typo was made by an immigration officer. The court was not persuaded that the non-citizen must have provided an accurate address or otherwise corrected the address by the fact that the bag and baggage letter was sent to the correct address.
The full text of Nivelo Cardenas v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60778-CV0.pdf