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 agency is not required to consider child abuse that took place in the United States when considering whether a deported parent is likely to torture their child in their country of origin.
The full text of GC v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/30/21-1228.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has reversed a habeas grant to a detainee in immigration custody because the detainee failed to name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he was detained, as the respondent to his petition. The detainee had named the ICE Field Office Director, rather than the warden at Golden State Annex, as the respondent. In addition, because the Golden State Annex is physically located in the Eastern District of California, that was the proper district for filing habeas, not the Northern District, where the ICE Field Office is located.
The full text of Doe v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/29/23-15361.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has remanded a domestic violence and family-based asylum claim, noting the change in law governing these claims. “[T]o summarize, our decision to remand Marta’s application directly responds to: (1) the IJ’s near-exclusive reliance on A-B-I to broadly proclaim that victims of domestic violence do not qualify for asylum protection, and to ignore her factfinding obligations thereto; (2) the subsequent change in immigration authority that directs the agency to afford careful, case-by-case adjudication to asylum claims relating to domestic violence; (3) the Board’s disregard of immigration authority and Sixth Circuit precedent requiring the remand of pending applications in light of the glaring change in immigration authority here; and (4) the Board’s misapplication of the circularity rule in Marta’s case.”
The full text of Tista-Ruiz de Ajualip, et al. v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0170p-06.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to review an order from the District Court remanding a delayed naturalization application to the agency. “Simply stating the standard may be enough to explain why it is not met here. The district court’s remand order did not ‘end the litigation on the merits’ of Dubon’s naturalization petition. It did the opposite: It declined to address the merits at all, and instead provided for further adjudication of the merits before the agency. When the district court issued its order, in other words, a determination on the crucial issue in this litigation – Dubon’s eligibility to naturalize – was yet to come. And because that question remained ‘open’ and ‘unfinished,’ the district court’s § 1447(b) remand was not a ‘final decision’ as that term generally is defined under § 1291.”
The full text of Dubon v. Jaddou can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222280.P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has reviewed the agency’s hardship determination in a cancellation of removal application and remanded the proceedings because it was not clear that the Immigration Judge had considered a treating therapist’s predication that removal of the applicant would increase the likelihood that her daughter would engage in self harm.
The full text of Garcia Cortes v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221930.p.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that the forcible institutionalization of a mentally ill man does not compel the granting of asylum when the man’s mental illness caused him to behave in a disruptive and violent manner.
The full text of Joshi v. Garland can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has the authority to determine the date of change in foreign law, even when the administrative record is unclear about this information. In this case, because the Department of Homeland Security misstated the date of the change in foreign law during its cross-examination, the Court determined that the improper cross-examination may have had a substantial prejudicial effect on the agency’s assessment of the applicant’s credibility. “While the INA thus places strict limits on our ability to consider additional ‘evidence’ that is not contained in the agency record, it does not similarly restrict our ability to conduct independent legal research concerning any question of law that properly arises in our consideration of a petition for review of a removal order.” “And, here, the issue of the effective date of the relevant Chinese law’s repeal is a readily resolvable question of law, not a question of fact.” The Court further concluded that in interpreting foreign law, it may consult “any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”
The full text of Shen v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/24/16-71315.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has affirmed that a Virginia conviction for solicitation of prostitution is a crime involving moral turpitude. The Court rejected the argument that societal attitudes toward prostitution had sufficiently changed such that solicitation of prostitution was no longer base conduct.
The full text of Ortega-Cordova v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221700.P.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that the Sixth Circuit is the proper appellate venue for a detained matter filed with the Cleveland Immigration Court, even though the immigration judge was sitting in Virginia, and the applicant was detained in Pennsylvania. “Therefore, in the context of remote proceedings or hearings, the physical locations of the IJ and other participants are not what dictates the answer to the question of where the proceedings occur. Instead, we agree with the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits that ‘proceedings’ take place in the Immigration Court in which the proceedings began, unless there is a formal change of venue. Judicial venue under § 1252(b)(2) thus aligns with administrative venue.” The court, accordingly, transferred the petition for review to the Sixth Circuit,
the full text of Castillo v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that death threats are no per se past persecution, noting that they will rise to the level of persecution only if the applicant can point to aggravating circumstances indicating that the death threat was “so imminent or concrete” or “so menacing as itself to cause actual suffering or harm.”
The full text of KC v. Garland can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ffede890-ad84-46c5-93e1-549ef45053a5/9/doc/20-3043_opn.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that has a California conviction for carjacking is not a crime of violence aggravated felony. “On a plain reading, section 215 defines carjacking more broadly than section 16(a) by not requiring the use of force.” The court further concluded that the use of fear required by the statute does not necessarily include the use of force. The court additionally concluded that the statute requires only a reckless mens rea, which is less than is necessary to match the definition of a crime of violence. “In sum, section 215 criminalizes carjacking committed through fear and without the use of force, as well as carjacking committed through the unintentional use of force.” The court further determined the statute is not divisible.
The full of Gutierrez v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/02/21-130.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a lawful permanent resident who became inadmissible and deportable by virtue of a conviction entered after he obtained his residency is stil eligible to naturalize. The court examined the regulation at 8 CFR § 316.2(b), focusing ont he requirement that a permanent resident be lawfully admitted to the United States during any subsequent reentry. The Court concluded that simply because the applicant was inadmissible due to his conviction at the time of his last entry to the United States, that did not change that he was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident when he reentered the United States, as it was undisputed that he continued to enjoy his permanent resident status at the time of his reentry.
The full text of Azumah v. USCIS can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222175.P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the terms of temporary members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) can be renewed. The court also remanded a religion-based asylum claim, remanding for the Board to consider whether statements and actions by gang members demonstrated that the applicant’s evangelizing was one central reason for the harm he suffered.
The full text of Rivera v. Garland can be found here: https://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/07/232351P.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that an adjustment of status application has been unreasonably delayed.
The full text of Cheejati v. Blinken can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-40398-CV1.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that the phrase “confined as a result of conviction,” as it is found in the list of good moral character bars, includes time spent in pre-conviction confinement.
The full text of Aguilar v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183320p.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a non-citizen whose conditional residence is terminated for failure to file a joint petition to remove the conditions is not eligible to seek a waiver under section 237(a)(1)(H) of the INA, even if the failure to file the joint petition is related to to marriage fraud.
The full text of Bador v. Garland can be found be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/413f83c3-2f65-479a-a951-2b9c1c3c5908/3/doc/22-6492_opn.pdf
The Supreme Court has determined that Chevron deference - a doctrine that accords deference to certain agency interpretations of statutes - is incompatible with the Administrative Procedure Act. “Chevron defies the command of the APA that ‘the reviewing court’—not the agency whose action it reviews—is to ‘decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory provisions.”
The full text of Lopez Bright v. Raimondo can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that a U.S. citizen does not a protected liberty interest in the adjudication of her spouse’s visa application, and thus, cannot use the procedural due process clause to obtain federal court review of the denial of that application. This decision may (sadly) close the door to one of the very few opportunities to obtain judicial review of visa denials in federal court and appears to be a whole hearted embrace by the Supreme Court of the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.
Apart from the legal reasoning in the opinion, the outcome seems out of step with the Biden Administration’s recent emphasis on family reunification, which is noteworthy as the Solicitor General, not Mrs. Munoz, sought Supreme Court review in this matter. In addition, just one week later, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lopez Bright Enterprises, which emphasizes the role of federal courts in statutory interpretation and review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Munoz and Loper Bright decisions seem philosophically at odds with one another.
The full text of Department of State v. Munoz can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-334diff_q8l1.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has confirmed that rape is a torture and is not a lawful sanction. “Rape clearly rises to the level of torture. It is an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment’ that causes severe pain or suffering and is therefore mistreatment sufficiently severe to qualify for protection under the CAT where the other elements are established. As the Immigration Judge noted, torture does not include pain or suffering arising from lawful sanctions. However, a lawful sanction must be judicially imposed or otherwise authorized by law. While incarceration is a lawful sanction, rape by fellow inmates is not. Additionally, a lawful sanction cannot ‘defeat the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture to prohibit torture. Thus, rape is sufficiently severe to constitute torture and can never be a lawful sanction under the CAT.”
The full text of Matter of H-C-R-C- can be found here:
The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit found that district courts had no equitable authority to require the Department of State to issue diversity visas past the applicable statutory deadlines.
The full text of Goodluck v. Biden can be found here:
