These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Third Circuit has determined that a Special Immigrant Juvenile is paroled for adjustment purposes only, and is still properly found removable for being present without admission or parole.
The full text of Cortez-Amador v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/221249p.pdf
The First Circuit, in construing former section 321(a) of the INA, has assumed that manifesting an intent to reside permanently in the US would be sufficient for derivation of citizenship, but found that a minor who abandoned his adjustment application by failing to appear at an interview without a reasonable explanation did not manifest such intent.
The full text of Sharma v. Garland can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that federal courts have no jurisdiction to review the denial of a U visa waiver of inadmissibility. The full text of Mejia Vega v. USCIS can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/14/16-56795.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the object crime of a conspiracy is an element of the offense of the Iowa conspiracy statute. Therefore, conspiracy to commit willful injury causing bodily injury is a crime of violence.
The full text of United States v. McConnell can be found here: http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/23/04/213759P.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has again determined that TPS holders who are subject to a final order of removal, and who travel on advance parole, must reopen their removal proceedings to seek adjustment of status. In so doing, the Court left open the possibility that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Patel v. Garland might not have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review denials of adjustment of status applications outside of removal proceedings.
The full text of Alvarado Hernandez v. Jaddou can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-20325-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that Equal Access to Justice Act fees are not available in habeas actions. The full text of Gomez Barco v. Witte can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-30748-CV0.pdf
The First Circuit has determined that the good faith marriage determination required by an I-751 waiver is a mixed question of fact and law, which the court maintains jurisdiction to review. The court noted the underlying factual findings would not be reviewable.
The full text of Alzaben v. Garland can be found here:
The California Court of Appeals, First Appellate Division, has determined that a court is not required to dismiss charges after granting a motion to vacate under section 1473.7 of the California Penal Code.
The full text of People v. Vaca can be found here: http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0423//A164953
The Ninth Circuit has determined that both Washington and federal generic accomplice liability law require prosecutors to meet the same standard of proof: they must show the accomplice had advance knowledge of the crime he facilitated. In so holding, the court overruled US v. Valdivia-Flores and US v. Franklin and held that second-degree robbery in Washington matches the definition of a theft aggravated felony.
The full text of Alfred v. Garland (including two concurrences and two dissents):
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/30/19-72903.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the loss to the victim as the result of a fraud-related conspiracy is the loss attributable to the entire conspiracy. That is because “all coconspirators are criminally liable for reasonably foreseeable overt acts committed by others in furtherance of the conspiracy they have joined, whether they were aware of them or not.” The court also determined that a sentencing enhancement based on loss to the victim was sufficient to prove the amount of loss, even in the absence of a restitution order.
The full text of Khalulyan v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/30/21-70909.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of an adjustment of status application for someone who has not been placed in removal proceedings, on the theory that the person may be able to renew the application at a future date if such proceedings commence.
The full text of Elldakli v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-20344-CV0.pdf
In a very unusual circumstance, the Sixth Circuit has found a restitution order - based on an itemized “loss” list that contained internal inconsistencies, as well charges not covered by the criminal statute - was insufficient to demonstrate a greater than $10,000 loss to the victim.
The full text of Al-Adily v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0058p-06.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction for common law robbery does not qualify as a violent felony because it does not include an element of the use of violent force. Instead, it can be committed by threatening to accuse the robbery victim of committing sodomy.
The full text of US v. Williams can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that the agency’s now-defunct holding in Matter of Castro Tum, which held that Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals lacked the general authority to administratively close proceedings, was a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, and the subsequent reversal of that interpretation in Matter of Cruz Valdez does not render it unreasonable.
The full text of Garcia v. Garland can be found here:
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, has determined that a defense attorney who “probably likely” advised a client that if he reduced his felony to a misdemeanor, he could avoid mandatory deportation, provided sufficiently inaccurate advice to damage the client’s ability to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.
The full text of People v. Villalba can be found here:
http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0323//B318353
Shoutout to Doug Jalaie for a great decision!
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has determined that there is no jurisdiction to review the denial of an adjustment of status application under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The full text of Abuzeid v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings for choice of law purposes is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court.
The full text of Matter of Garcia can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals must apply de novo review to the question of whether persecution will be inflicted on account of a protected ground.
Shoutout to Sabrina Damast (yes, I just gave myself a shoutout in the third person) and Jose Medrano for getting this published decision!
The full text of Umana-Escobar v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/17/19-70964.pdf
Amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/05/23/19-70964.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Order to Show Cause lacking the date and time of the first deportation hearing is sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule for suspension of deportation.
The full text of Gutterrez-Alm v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/15/17-71012.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents, and that the factors in Matter of C-V-T- do not provide a legal standard sufficient for federal court review.
The full text of Ayala Chapa v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60039-CV0.pdf
