The First Circuit has determined that a conviction remains final for immigration purposes during the pendency of a post-conviction motion.
The full text of St. John v. Garland can be found here:
The Department of Homeland Security has announced an extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status for Afghanistan. Citizens of Afghanistan present in the United States since September 20, 2023 may now qualify for TPS.
The full announcement can be found here:
The Department of Homeland Security has announced an extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela. Venezuelan citizens present in the United States since July 31, 2023 may now qualify for TPS.
The full announcement can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has confirmed that a failure to report harm is not necessarily fatal to a claim of persecution if the respondent can demonstrate that reporting private abuse to government authorities would have been futile or dangerous. In addition, adjudicators should not expect a respondent to hide his or her sexual orientation if removed to his or her native country.
The full text of Matter of C-G-T- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1594626/download
The Tenth Circuit has determined that if a non-citizen is granted voluntary departure, and wishes to file a motion to reopen, he must do so by the 60th day of his voluntary departure period, even if that day falls on a weekend.
The full text of Velazquez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110915861.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110969149.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Oregon conviction for menacing constituting domestic violence is not a crime involving moral turpitude because it does not require the actual infliction of fear. “A CIMT determination requires both an evil or malicious intent and the infliction of actual substantial harm on another. In Latter-Singh, we explained that the injury required under § 422—that the victim experience sustained fear from the threat—ensured that the statute criminalized only ‘conduct which results in substantial harm’ and excluded non-turpitudinous conduct such as ‘emotional outbursts’ or ‘mere angry utterances or ranting soliloquies, however violent.’” “The Oregon menacing statute prohibits words or conduct that is intended to place others in fear of imminent serious physical injury, but it does not require any intent to cause injury or that the victim experience any actual fear or injury as a result of the criminal act.”
The full text of Flores-Vasquez v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/31/20-73447.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a removal order is not jurisdictional. The court has further determined that a petition for review filed within 30 days of the completion of reasonable fear proceedings (rather than the issuance of a reinstatement order) is timely.
The full text of Alonso-Juarez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/09/08/15-72821.pdf
The Third Circuit has construed the polygamy bar to good moral character to require the applicant to have knowingly entered into two marriages simultaneously. It does not require any evaluation of the applicant’s subjective beliefs regarding the practice of polygamy.
The full text of Al-Hasani v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security can be found at: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/221603p.pdf
The Second Circuit has again cast doubt on the reliability of border interviews in a credibility determination. The court reiterated that “a border interview record is “‘inherently less reliable’ if (1) the record ‘merely summarizes or paraphrases the [noncitizen’s] statements’ rather than include ‘a verbatim account or transcript,” (2) “the questions asked are not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim, or the . . . officer fails to ask follow-up questions that would aid the [noncitizen] in developing his or her account,’ (3) ‘the [noncitizen] appears to have been reluctant to reveal information to INS officials because of prior interrogation sessions or other coercive experiences in his or her home country,’ or (4) ‘the [noncitizen’s] answers to the questions posed suggest that the [noncitizen] did not understand English or the translations provided by the interpreter.’” An IJ is required to consider these factors before relying on a border interview for an adverse credibility determination if the record indicates the factors may be relevant.
The full text of Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e263f00e-d425-4546-a54b-58a3fa367add/10/doc/20-3230_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e263f00e-d425-4546-a54b-58a3fa367add/10/hilite/
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced an extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Sudan. Sudanese citizens who have been physically present in the United States since August 16, 2023, and who are not otherwise ineligible for TPS, may now apply.
The official announcement can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/08/18/secretary-mayorkas-extends-and-redesignates-temporary-protected-status-sudan
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced an extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukraine. Ukrainians who have been physically present in the United States since August 16, 2023, and who are not otherwise ineligible for TPS, may now apply.
The official announcement can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/08/18/secretary-mayorkas-extends-and-redesignates-temporary-protected-status-ukraine
The DC Circuit has dismissed an unreasonable delay action brought by EB-5 petitioners, finding that absent any credible allegations that USCIS is not following their own processing rules, allowing individual litigants to “skip the line” would not do anything to systemically improve processing times.
The full text of Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office can be found here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1620A36CDDF5CDD985258A0F00514CE6/$file/22-5313-2013134.pdf
The Tenth Circuit, in assuming that DHS violated certain regulations during their apprehension of a non-citizen, determined that the non-citizen did not suffer any prejudice by being required to litigate his adjustment of status application before an immigration judge rather than before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
“Mr. Aguayo emphasizes adjustment hearings in immigration court are procedurally different from non-adversarial USCIS interviews because a petitioner appears in front of the IJ ‘in a pastel jumpsuit’ and is ‘cross-examined in an adversarial courtroom by trained government lawyers, while in confinement apart from family.’ As a general matter, we are sympathetic to Mr. Aguayo’s contention. But whether the adversarial nature of immigration court potentially affected or actually affected the outcome of removal proceedings is not self-evident. As the government points out, Mr. Aguayo had ‘a full opportunity to present his case for adjustment of status before the IJ,’ and he does not argue ‘he would have submitted more or different evidence to USCIS than he presented to the IJ.’ The BIA correctly determined Mr. Aguayo ‘speculates’ but ‘provides no evidence that USCIS would have approved his adjustment application.’”
The full text of Aguayo v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110905064.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that aiding and abetting Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence because aiding and abetting is simply a form of accomplice liability and does not change that the statute involves the actual or threatened use of violent force.
The full text of United States v. Eckford can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/15/17-50167.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has affirmed a finding that a lawful permanent resident was convicted of a fraud aggravated felony, even though the loss related to the sole count of conviction was approximately $1000. In so doing, the court looked to the overall restitution order (which included loss related to dismissed counts) in excess of $475,000 and her admission that she aided and abetted her mother’s scheme to defraud the State of California of that amount of money.
The full text of Robbertse v. Garland can be found here:
The Sixth Circuit has reaffirmed that an individual subject to a reinstated removal order files a timely petition for review if it is filed within 30 days of the agency’s dismissal of his withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture claims.
The full text of Kolov v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0186p-06.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has abandoned its prior “rogue official” formulation for Convention Against Torture claims, and refocused on whether an official was acting under color of law when inflicting torture. “An act that is motivated by personal objectives may be under color of law when the actor uses his or her official authority to further those objectives.” “[I]t is key to consider whether he or she was only able to accomplish the acts of torture by virtue of holding official status. In evaluating if a public official acted under color of law, circuit courts have often relied on whether the actor’s government connections provided physical access to the victim, or to the victim’s whereabouts or other identifying information.” “Also relevant to, but not dispositive of, the ‘under color of law’ analysis is whether a law enforcement officer was on duty and in official uniform at the time of the torturous conduct.” “Another relevant consideration in determining whether an official’s conduct is under color of law is whether the official threatened and had the ability to retaliate through governmental channels if the victim reported the conduct to authorities.”
The full text of Matter of J-G-R- can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that several federal money laundering statutes do not meet the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude. The court also applied the categorical approach in denaturalization proceedings.
The full text of United States v. Lopez can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112709.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has reaffirmed that a petition for review (PFR) challenging a reinstatement order is timely if it is filed within 30 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision at the end of the ensuing withholding/CAT only proceeding. The PFR need be filed within 30 days of ICE’s issuance of the reinstatement order.
The full text of Arostegui-Maldonado v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110897188.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a noncitizen seeking to reopen to pursue relief from removal must show a reasonable likelihood of success on the relief to obtain reopening. The “reasonable likelihood” standard requires a petitioner to show more than a mere possibility she will establish a claim for relief, but it does not require the petitioner to demonstrate she is more likely than not to prevail. “In contrast, the ‘would likely change’ standard requires a petitioner to establish that it is at least more probable than not that the new evidence would change the outcome of the claim. The ‘would likely change’ standard plainly places a heavier burden on a petitioner than the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard. Today, we clarify any possible confusion in our case law and reaffirm that the ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard applies to decisions made on the prima facie ground, and the ‘would likely change’ standard applies to decisions made on the discretionary ground.
The full text of Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/08/08/20-71977.pdf