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 death threats are no per se past persecution, noting that they will rise to the level of persecution only if the applicant can point to aggravating circumstances indicating that the death threat was “so imminent or concrete” or “so menacing as itself to cause actual suffering or harm.”
The full text of KC v. Garland can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ffede890-ad84-46c5-93e1-549ef45053a5/9/doc/20-3043_opn.pdf
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas announced the extension and redesignation of Yemen for Temporary Protected Status for 18 months, from September 4, 2024, to March 3, 2026, due to country conditions in Yemen that prevent individuals from safely returning. The redesignation of Yemen for TPS allows an estimated 1,700 Yemeni nationals (and individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Yemen) who have been continuously residing in the United States since July 2, 2024 to file initial applications for TPS, if they are otherwise eligible.
The full text of the announcement can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/07/08/secretary-mayorkas-announces-extension-and-redesignation-yemen-temporary-protected
The Ninth Circuit has determined that has a California conviction for carjacking is not a crime of violence aggravated felony. “On a plain reading, section 215 defines carjacking more broadly than section 16(a) by not requiring the use of force.” The court further concluded that the use of fear required by the statute does not necessarily include the use of force. The court additionally concluded that the statute requires only a reckless mens rea, which is less than is necessary to match the definition of a crime of violence. “In sum, section 215 criminalizes carjacking committed through fear and without the use of force, as well as carjacking committed through the unintentional use of force.” The court further determined the statute is not divisible.
The full of Gutierrez v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/02/21-130.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a lawful permanent resident who became inadmissible and deportable by virtue of a conviction entered after he obtained his residency is stil eligible to naturalize. The court examined the regulation at 8 CFR § 316.2(b), focusing ont he requirement that a permanent resident be lawfully admitted to the United States during any subsequent reentry. The Court concluded that simply because the applicant was inadmissible due to his conviction at the time of his last entry to the United States, that did not change that he was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident when he reentered the United States, as it was undisputed that he continued to enjoy his permanent resident status at the time of his reentry.
The full text of Azumah v. USCIS can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/222175.P.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that the terms of temporary members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) can be renewed. The court also remanded a religion-based asylum claim, remanding for the Board to consider whether statements and actions by gang members demonstrated that the applicant’s evangelizing was one central reason for the harm he suffered.
The full text of Rivera v. Garland can be found here: https://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/07/232351P.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act that an adjustment of status application has been unreasonably delayed.
The full text of Cheejati v. Blinken can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-40398-CV1.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that the phrase “confined as a result of conviction,” as it is found in the list of good moral character bars, includes time spent in pre-conviction confinement.
The full text of Aguilar v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183320p.pdf
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
