These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Interpol Red Notice, a Salvadoran arrest warrant, and the petitioner’s incredible testimony were sufficient to demonstrate serious reasons to believe that he had committed a serious nonpolitical crime.
The full text of Villalobos Sura v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/17/20-71839.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has no jurisdiction to determine if a non-citizen was deprived of his right to counsel in a credible fear review because it lacks the authority to review constitutional claims related to expedited removal proceedings.
The full text of Guerrier v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/16/20-70115.pdf
An amended opinion was issued on November 9, 2021, and can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/09/20-70115.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an adjustment of status applicant was not given adequate notice that his past claims to citizenship could render him inadmissible and ineligible for permanent residence.
“We hold that Flores-Rodriguez was not put on notice that his alleged false claim of citizenship would be at issue in his 2014 hearing.” “At Flores-Rodriguez’s 2012 preliminary hearing, the IJ discussed false claims of citizenship only in the context of a possible DHS charge, telling him that if such a charge were sustained, he would not be eligible for adjustment of status. At Flores-Rodriguez’s 2013 preliminary hearing—during which the final IJ hearing was scheduled—the issue was not raised at all. In sum, by the time Flores-Rodriguez had his final hearing in 2014, his alleged false claim of citizenship had not been raised by the IJ for two years, and the last time it had been discussed the IJ implied it would only be dispositive if DHS sustained a false claim of citizenship charge against him. DHS never even brought such a charge.”
The full text of Flores-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/16/19-70177.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has remanded a case involving the proposed social group of imputed gang members. The court noted that its prior concerns that Congress would not have wanted to reward gang members for their behavior by recognizing them as a social group for asylum purposes do not apply when the membership is imputed only (i.e., based on an erroneous belief the persecutors that the applicant is a gang member).
The full text of Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/05/19-71445.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Hawaii conviction for fourth degree theft is not a crime involving moral turpitude because it does not require the defendant to intend to permanently deprive or substantially erode the owner’s property interests. The court further determined that the statute is indivisible.
The full text of Maie v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/08/02/19-73099.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has rejected the derivative citizenship claim of a lawful permanent resident whose father naturalized before his 18th birthday. In doing so, the court noted that even assuming the petitioner’s parents entered into a de facto union in Peru (roughly the equivalent of a common law marriage), there was no proof of a legal separation between his parents. “Nothing about the Peruvian court’s determination that Hernandez had abandoned the family and lost her parental rights says anything about the type of relationship that existed between her and Walter, much less that it had been formally terminated.”
The full text of Giha v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/02/15-73085.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the agency need not consider an applicant’s mental health in its particularly serious crime analysis when invoking the presumption in Matter of Y-L- that drug trafficking crimes are particularly serious crimes, unless the applicant first overcomes that presumption.
The full text of Gilbertson v. Garland can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that proposed group of “Mexican mothers who refuse to work for the cartel” is not sufficiently particularized or socially distinct.
The full text of Rosales-Reyes v. Garland can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit vacated the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen and remand to seek a continuance in light of a U visa application filed during the pendency of the appeal. The court noted that the Board can either apply the Sanchez Sosa factors or remand the case to an Immigration Judge to do so.
The full text of Quecheluno v. Garland can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Texas conviction for aggravated assault is not a violent felony because it encompasses reckless conduct. “Everyone agrees that the Texas law in question defines a single, indivisible offense that can be committed under any of three mental states—intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly.”
The full text of United States v. Hoxworth can be found here: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/21/08/191562P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a crime which is not a per se particularly serious crime must be of the type that shows that the applicant is a danger to the community and must be “excessive in quality or extent to some unusual degree.”
The full text of Mumad v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Sixth Circuit has determined that Tennessee’s first-degree burglary statute is overbroad as compared to the generic definition of burglary because it includes breaking into a container (i.e., a drawer) after a lawful entry.
The full text of Cartwright v. United States can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0203p-06.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of a motion to reopen based on the movant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of the required hardship for cancellation of removal. “The BIA’s denial of her motion based on its conclusion that she failed to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief of cancellation of removal is tantamount to a discretionary decision on the merits barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).”
The full text of Parada-Orellana v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60645-CV0.pdf
UPDATE: The court, on rehearing, has issued an amended opinion, withdrawing its jurisdictional analysis, but finding that Parada-Orellana did not make a prima facie showing of hardship:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60645-CV1.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a motion filed based on a change in law (namely, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya v. Sessions) was properly construed as only a motion to reconsider, and not a motion to reopen. As such, the 30-day filing deadline was properly applied by the agency (starting from the date the petitioner learned of the Dimaya decision), instead of the longer 90-day deadline applicable to motions to reopen.
The full text of Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60274-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has rejected a claim for asylum by a former gang member, affirming the agency’s determination that former gang members are not a cognizable particular social group. The court distinguished the agency’s treatment of the record in this case from the agency’s treatment of the record in Oliva.
The full text of Nolasco v. Garland can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that an Immigration Judge must give an asylum applicant the opportunity to identify the language they prefer to proceed in, and if that language is anything other than English, to secure an interpreter for the applicant. Accordingly, the court remanded a motion to reopen filed by a Cameroonian asylum seeker whose native language was Pidgin English, and who was not provided with an interpreter during his removal proceedings.
The full text of BC v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that a naturalized citizen convicted of a crime and then subsequently denaturalized cannot be deported based on the conviction sustained while he was a citizen. The court found that the agency’s contrary interpretation was not entitled to deference.
The full text of Singh v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that an omission can support an adverse credibility determination when the applicant could have been expected to disclose the information sooner. In this case, the applicant testified during direct examination that he was on a government black list, but did not disclose until cross-examination that his father and church mate (both of whom had submitted letters in support of his claim that were devoid of any mention of the blacklist) could corroborate that his name was on the list.
The full text of Liang v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d68e31ed-8fb2-4fd4-a7a1-1544a38ff6fa/21/doc/18-2257_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/d68e31ed-8fb2-4fd4-a7a1-1544a38ff6fa/21/hilite/
The First Circuit has determined that in a 236(a) bond hearing, the Department of Homeland Security bears the burden of proving the detainee is a danger to the community and a flight risk. With respect to danger, the burden is clear and convincing evidence. For flight risk, the burden is preponderance of the evidence. The court determined that this burden allocation is required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The full text of Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons can be found here:
The CA Court of Appeals, Fourth District, has determined that abuse of discretion, not independent review, is the proper standard for reviewing the denial of a Penal Code section 1018 motion to vacate a guilty plea. Moving to the merits of the motion, the court held that a trial court’s warning that the immigration consequences in Penal Code section 1016.5 “will” attach, when coupled with a signed Tahl waiver form, does not necessarily defeat the motion.
“The only evidence Lopez had been told a guilty plea would result in deportation was the Tahl form itself. According to Lopez, the process of reviewing the Tahl form ‘took maybe five minutes.’ Trial counsel did not seem to know how long the process took, testifying both that it took ‘a minute or two’ and that it took ‘a while.’ There was no specific testimony that it took longer than the five minutes Lopez described to review the eight-page Tahl form. It also appears from the Tahl form that Lopez robotically initialed almost every line on it, including the prosecutor’s, the defense attorney’s, and the interpreter’s statements. (There was no interpreter used in this case.) It is at best unclear that Lopez read or understood what he was initialing. But even presuming he did, the Tahl form, as a ‘generic advisement’ of consequences, does not constitute a bar to relief.”
“The most important fact about the immigration paragraph of the Tahl form is that both trial counsel and Lopez agree there was no discussion of it.” “Trial counsel testified that he read the immigration portion verbatim from the form. He did not testify that he explained it or expanded on it, nor did he testify that he and the Lopez had any earlier meetings or phone calls to discuss the plea or its immigration consequences. This type of pro forma review does not satisfy section 1016.3, which requires not only accurate but also ‘affirmative advice’ about the immigration consequences of a proposed plea agreement.”
“The evidence before the trial court, based on trial counsel’s testimony, was that trial counsel did not know which of the charges against Lopez carried immigration consequences and what those consequences were.” “Trial counsel may have told Lopez ‘these charges are deportable’ without further specifics, testifying that was ‘generally what I would say.’ Trial counsel testified that he ‘wasn’t worried about the individual charges.’ But under the standard of ‘accurate and affirmative advice’ under section 1016.3, the consequences of each individual charge were highly relevant.” “Not only was trial counsel’s advice not accurate, it was either nonexistent or based on a misapprehension of the surrounding facts and law.”
The full text of People v. Lopez can be found here:
