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 Fifth Circuit has determined that a reinstatement order is a final order of removal, and therefore, a petition for review must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of that order. The existence of an ongoing withholding/CAT only proceedings does not toll the deadline for filing that petition for review.
The full text of Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60307-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit reversed a reasonable internal relocation finding, noting that an asylum applicant’s ability to live in hiding for 3-4 weeks in Islamabad does not meet the government’s burden to prove that he could safely internally relocate there away from the Taliban.
The full text of Ullah v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221026.P.pdf
The court granted a petition for rehearing and remanded the case for the agency to determine if asylum should be granted as a matter of discretion:
The Fourth Circuit re-affirmed its strong family-based particular social group case law, finding that “young male family members of [the applicant’s] cousin Emily” is a cognizable social group.
The full text of Santos Garcia v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has found that a Notice to Appear (NTA) missing the time and date of the first hearing precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. This remains true even if the non-citizen moves from the address listed on the putative NTA and does not notify the agency.
The full text of Lazo-Gavidia v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has remanded the denial of a religion-based asylum claim brought by a Pentecostal Christian. “Review of the record demonstrates that Chicas-Machado established that one central reason MS-13 chose to target her was her religion. Even the motive for the gang’s persecution that the BIA recognized — her use as a potential asset to the gang because ‘no one would suspect [her]’ given ]her activity and conduct with the church — was inextricably intertwined with her religion.”
The court also emphasized that an asylum applicant is not required to show that a persecutor intends to stop or hinder her religious practice. “There is no dispute over the fact that Chicas-Machado’s activities — spreading the word of God, acting as the church’s secretary, and telling young people to attend church — constitute religious practice. So the only disputed issue is whether, in targeting Chicas-Machado because of her religious activities and then threatening to murder her, MS-13 restricted or suppressed her ability to participate in these religious activities.”
The full text of Chicas-Machado v. Garland can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that an incomplete Notice to Appear (i.e., one lacking the date and time of a first hearing) precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. “According to the Department, this disjunctive phrasing makes Madrid-Mancia’s defective NTA immaterial. Madrid-Mancia got a ‘Notice of Hearing,’ and that alone, it concludes, is enough for in absentia removal. That is not enough because § 1229a(b)(5)(A) always requires a complete NTA. And the Attorney General cannot cure defects in an NTA by sending out a self-styled ‘Notice of Hearing’ because announcing the time and date of a removal hearing for the first time is not a ‘change or postponement’ in the time or place.”
The full text of Madrid-Mancia v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that the factors outlined in Matter of Sanchez Sosa apply to a motion to remand filed when a case is on appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The full text of Paucar v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a CAT claim in which the agency discredited an expert’s opinion without sufficient reason.
The full text of G.P. v. Garland can be found here:
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:
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
