These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
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 Department of Homeland Security accounced the extension and redesignation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months, from Aug. 4, 2024, through Feb. 3, 2026.
The full announcement can be found here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/stakeholder-messages/extension-and-redesignation-of-haiti-for-tps
USCIS has extended the validity of employment authorization documents approved under a Temporary Protected Status designation for citizens of El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Sudan.
The full announcement can be read here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-extends-employment-authorization-documents-under-temporary-protected-status-designations-of-el
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:
The Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the agency’s refusal to reopen proceedings for a non-citizen who did not correct an erroneous address on the Notice to Appear.
The full text of Rosales-Mendez v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202213164.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that “but-for causation” is one way - but not the only way - to establish that a protected ground was one central reason for persecution. “Sometimes, a protected ground will be a but-for cause of the harm and play more than a minor role, but it won’t be sufficient on its own to cause the harm. Other times, a protected ground will be sufficient on its own, but it won’t be a but-for cause because there is another unprotected ground that would be sufficient on its own. Under Parussimova, both circumstances meet our ‘one central reason’ standard.” Employing this analysis, the Court concluded that an applicant’s Jehovah’s Witness faith was one central reason for the harm he experienced when gang members threatened to harm him if he did not stop preaching, even while they also extorted money from him.
The full text of Alfaro Manzano v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/25/22-704.pdf
On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit reversed its precedent, and concluded that a California conviction for dissuading a witness matches the definition of an obstruction of justice aggravated felony. In so doing, the court rejected an argument that the California mens rea is broader than the federal mens rea.
The full text of Cordero-Garcia v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/27/19-72779.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14 is an attempted sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony. In so doing, the court confirmed that its Medina-Villa definition of sexual abuse (involving abusive contact with a minor) is not irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel-Quintana (addressing when statutory rape crimes qualify as sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felonies).
The full text of Leon Perez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/28/23-204.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has reaffirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of a cancellation of removal application.
The full text of Santiago Lopez v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has remanded a petition for review of a denied cancellation of removal case, in which it determined that the agency failed to adequately address a therapist’s professional opinion 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 Third Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a final removal order is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional rule. The court also determined that a reinstatement order is not administratively final until a final agency decision is issued on the applicant’s withholding of removal and CAT applications.
The full text of Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that an Immigration Judge may order removed in absentia a non-citizen who received a Notice to Appear lacking the time and date of his first hearing, if the Immigration Court subsequently mailed a notice of hearing to the individual with that information.
The full text of Campos-Chaves v. Garland can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has reaffirmed that it lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that an asylum application is untimely and does not qualify for an exception to the one-year filing deadline. The court concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Guerero-Lasprilla and Wilkinson did not mandate a contrary conclusion.
The full text of APA v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202110496.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has determined that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the delay in adjudication of provisional waivers of unlawful presence (Form I-601A) under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court cited the prohibition in 8 USC 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) on federal court review of any action regarding waivers of unlawful presence.
The full text of Soni v. Jaddou can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has stated that choice of law is dependent upon venue in Immigration Court proceedings, and therefore, the controlling circuit law is not affected by a change in the administrative control court and will only change upon the granting of a motion to change venue.
The full text of Matter of M-N-I can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a Florida conviction under the 2008 version of the state’s lewd lascivious battery statute is a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony. “The least culpable conduct under § 800.04(4) is consensual sexual activity between adolescents who are 12 to 15 years old, with no minimum age required for the perpetrator. The statute therefore sweeps more broadly than the generic federal definition of ‘sexual abuse of a minor,’ which in the statutory rape context before us requires an age difference of at least one year between the perpetrator and the victim.”
The full text of Leger v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210971.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has reiterated the requirement that official documents be authenticated in removal proceedings. It suggested that the procedures for authentication of domestic records in 8 C.F.R. 287.6 may be mandatory, but did not ultimately conclude what procedures are required because the petitioner failed to object to the documents on authenticity grounds before the immigration judge.
The full text of Smith v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/06/03/22-954.pdf
