These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The California Court of Appeals has determined that if a petitioner meets her burden of proving the requirements for a Special Immigrant Juvenile Status predicate order, there is a mandatory on the court to issue the findings.
The full text of Matter of Scarlett V. can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined - applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Stokeling - that a California carjacking conviction qualifies as a crime of violence.
The full text of Matter of A. Valenzuela can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has remanded an asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture claim for a Sri Lankan citizen, finding that the agency did not give consideration to his claim of future harm based on his status as a failed asylum seeker.
The full text of Jathursan v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202010003.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has affirmed that the agency lacks authority to reopen a reinstated removal order. In this case, the petitioner was a lawful permanent resident who was ordered removed (and physically removed) due to a felony animal cruelty conviction. After his removal, a state court vacated the conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and reinstated the original charges. The petitioner sought reopening of his removal order, which the Immigration Judge denied because the criminal charges were still reinstated and remained pending. The petitioner then unlawfully reentered the United States, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his removal order. Subsequently, he pled to misdemeanor animal cruelty, which was not a deportable offense, and filed a second motion to reopen, which the agency declined to grant because his removal order had already been reinstated. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the reinstatement barred reopening, and that the petitioner had forfeited his right to reopening by reentering illegally. Moreover, the court declined to find a “gross miscarriage of justice” exception to the bar to reopening reinstated orders, and further opined that even if such an exception existed, it would not apply to this case, because the petitioner’s conviction was vacated after he was removed. Finally, the court declined to extend nunc pro tunc relief with respect to the first motion to reopen, which was filed before the petitioner reentered the United States, finding that nunc pro tunc relief is an equitable remedy, which was barred by the petitioner’s “unclean hands.”
The full text of Tarango-Delgado v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110613259.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has remanded a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions because the agency failed to differentiate the heightened risk of harm to evangelical Christians in Indonesia - who proselytize as part of their faith - from the risk of harm to other non-evangelical Christians.
The full text of Nababan v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/23/18-72548.pdf
In a very brief analysis by Judge Paez, the Ninth Circuit rejected the equitable tolling argument of a former lawful permanent resident ordered removed in 2013 based on a finding that he had been convicted of a crime of violence under 18 USC 16(b). In 2015, the Ninth Circuit found that 16(b) was unconstitutionally vague, and the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in April 2018. The petitioner filed a motion to reconsider his removal order in July 2018, and requested equitable tolling in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, which he became aware of in June 2018. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the agency did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the petitioner did not present any evidence that he acted diligently between 2013, when he was ordered removed, and July 2018, when he filed his motion.
Judge Van Dyke wrote a much longer concurrence agreeing with the outcome of Judge Paez’s two-page analysis.
Judge Korman wrote a strong dissent, finding that the petitioner acted with diligence by filing his motion less than two months after he learned about the Supreme Court’s Dimaya decision from his former criminal defense attorney.
The full text of Goulart v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/18/19-72007.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has held that a vacatur of a criminal conviction after a petitioner has been physically removed from the United States does not demonstrate a gross miscarriage of justice in the underlying removal proceedings, such that he can challenge the reinstatement of a removal order premised on the vacated conviction. The gross miscarriage of justice standard looks at whether the removal order was valid at the time it was issued and at the time it was executed. Thus, any post-execution developments, such as vacatur of the conviction that formed the basis of the removal order, do not establish a gross miscarriage of justice. The court further noted that the petition was found deportable for having entered the United States without inspection, which provided a separate basis from the conviction for deporting him.
The full text of Lopez Vazquez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/11/12/18-70329.pdf
The Sixth Circuit has affirmed the agency’s finding that a member of UDPS (formerly, the primary opposition party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) no longer qualified for asylum because the current president of DRC is a member of UDPS. This change of the party in power was sufficient to rebut the presumption of future persecution raised by the existence of past persecution.
The full text of Mbonga v. Garland can be found here:
The Sixth Circuit has remanded a claim for asylum based on membership in the particular social group of “El Salvadorian women of childbearing age in domestic partnerships.” The court noted that the abrogation of Matter of A-B- by the Attorney General was a significant change in agency case law, warranting reconsideration of the viability of the proposed group.
The full text of Zometa-Orellana v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0271p-06.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has remanded a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture, emphasizing the agency’s obligation to consider country conditions evidence even if the applicant has not provided credible testimony.
The full text of Arulnanthy v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60760-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that the statute did not require Orders to Show Cause to include the time and location of a first deportation hearing, and thus, the lack of this info does not require reopening an in absentia deportation order.
The full text of Maradia v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60714-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has affirmed the denial of a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order where the Notice to Appear was missing the time and date of the first removal hearing because the petitioner provided a deficient mailing address to immigration authorities. The court distinguished its recent decision in Rodriguez, finding that the petitioner in the instant matter forfeited his right to notice of his removal proceeding by providing a deficient mailing address.
The decision in Spagnol-Bastos v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60139-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that the plaintiff in a delayed naturalization action is not entitled to Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) fees when the District Court remanded the application to USCIS with instructions to adjudicate it within a specified period, and the agency completed adjudication within that period of time. In such circumstances, the plaintiff was not a prevailing party for EAJA purposes.
The full text of Ge v. USCIS can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction for accessory after the fact is an obstruction of justice aggravated felony. In so doing, the court deferred to the agency’s definition of obstruction of justice, which does not require an ongoing investigation into the crime.
The full text of Pugin v. Garland can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that “Guatemala women” do not qualify as a cognizable particular social group for asylum and withholding of removal purposes because the proposed group lacks the requisite particularity. The court also recognized that the Notice to Appear in the case was lacking the time and date of the first removal hearing, which constituted a claims processing rule violation. However, the court determined that equitable considerations supported the agency’s refusal to terminate proceedings despite the rule violation.
The full text of Chavez-Chilel v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that the agency’s revocation of an I-140 based on doubts about the petitioning employer’s ability to pay and the qualifications of the beneficiary is a discretionary determination, which a federal court lacks jurisdiction to review.
The full text of Nouritajer v. Jaddou can be found here:
The Second Circuit has concluded that Orders to Show Cause that were missing the time and location information of the first deportation hearing still triggered the stop-time provision.
The full text of Jiang v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a case in which the Immigration Judge concluded that the petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal due to a drug trafficking conviction without analyzing whether the presumption arising in Matter of Y-L- had been rebutted. In addition, the petitioner argued that the Y-L- is effectively treated as a conclusion that all drug trafficking convictions are particularly serious crimes, as opposed to a rebuttable presumption. The court noted that the government had not presented a single case in which the agency found someone had rebutted the presumption, and thus, indicated the government could supplement the record on remand with any cases in which the agency found the presumption had been rebutted.
The full text of Decarvalho v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia felony conviction for eluding is a crime involving moral turpitude because it involves a mens rea (willful and wanton) that is higher than criminal negligence and reprehensible conduct (vehicular flight from law enforcement). In so doing, the court rejected an argument that the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude is unconstitutionally vague or violates the nondelegation doctrine.
The full text of Canales Granados v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/202028.P.pdf
The First Circuit has determined that not all persons detained under section 1226(c) have a constitutional right to a hearing concerning the reasonableness of their continued detention after they have been detained longer than six months, find that such analyses must be conducted on a case-by-case basis.
The full text of Reid v. Donelan can be found here:
