These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the Department of Homeland Security cannot remedy a putative Notice to Appear (one missing the date and time of the initial hearing) by filing a Form I-261.
The full text of Matter of Aguilar Hernandez can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge should not grant a motion to dismiss by the Department of Homeland Security when the respondent has the right to review of a denied I-751 application.
The full text of Matter of Bernardo can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has rejected a litigant’s challenge to a derivative citizenship claim, finding that even under a gender-neutral revision to the statute, he would not be entitled to citizenship.
The full text of Lodge v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210416.op2.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Iowa domestic abuse conviction is not a crime of violence because it criminalizes simple assault.
The full text of US v. Daye can be found here:
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/24/01/231048P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that an immigration judge may render a mixed credibility determination —deeming an applicant’s testimony credible as to one subject but not another. “In the case of a mixed credibility finding, a presumption of credibility should be applied by the Board on appeal concerning the portion of testimony not explicitly determined incredible.”
The full text of Ayala-Osegueda v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221707.P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has affirmed that an applicant for adjustment of status must prove her admissibility by clear and convincing evidence. Nonetheless, in a footnote, the court recognized that the applicant in this case was the mother of a military servicemember and worked in an important profession, and suggested that the Department of Justice may wish to revisit its position in the case. The applicant had presented significant evidence that someone else had likely checked the “US citizen” box on her I-9.
The full text of NIvar Santana v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded an asylum application, noting that there is was no other basis in the record for the persecution alleged than family ties. “The fact that the cattle thieves were motivated in targeting Pineda-Maldonado in part to protect themselves, because they feared Pineda-Maldonado would retaliate against them, is not disputed by the parties. Butt hat fact does not in and of itself suffice to end the inquiry into whether family status was ‘a central reason’ for their having targeted him, any more than the fact that the cattle thieves sought money in targeting Pineda-Maldonado due to his father's debt could end such an inquiry.”
The full text of Pineda-Maldonado v. Garland can be found here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1912P-01A.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has determined that the agency is not estopped from detaining a non-citizen in immigration custody without bond simply because a magistrate released him on pre-trial bail in a federal criminal proceeding. The Board noted that the criminal proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving a defendant is a flight risk or danger to the community to justify detention without bail, while in the immigration context, the non-citizen bears the burden of proving he is not a flight risk or danger to the community to justify the granting of bond.
The full text of Matter of Panin can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has affirmed that a federal conviction for voluntary manslaughter qualifies as a crime of violence because the mens rea of “depraved heart” or “extreme recklessness” is sufficient to establish a use of force against the person of another.
The full text of Brewer v. US can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has affirmed the right of a non-citizen to seek review of a denied I-751 petition in removal proceedings, despite any request to dismiss proceedings by the Department of Homeland Security.
The full text of Matter of H.N. Ferreira can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Washington misdemeanor conviction for harassment qualifies as a crime of violence because it involves the threatened or actual use of force.
The full text of Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/12/27/21-456.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has remanded a case to the agency to reevaluate a petitioner’s evidence of her delay in meeting a filing deadline. “Rodriguez was in the process of gathering evidence when she fled her abusive partner and was no longer able to access the documents that she had already collected. That evidence became unavailable once she became homeless, destitute, and unable to contact her attorney. Moreover, we see no reason to penalize Rodriguez for failing to meet a December 2017 deadline that the IJ vacated and extended to September 2018, particularly because neither party has asked us to do so. The BIA should therefore decide on remand whether any evidence that Rodriguez might have been able to access years earlier but that became unavailable more than ten months before the September 2018 filing deadline was still ‘reasonably available’ to her as the deadline approached.”
The full text of Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/12/28/21-411.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Texas conviction for aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon is a crime of violence because it requires the use or attempted use of physical force.
The full text of Delgado-Victorio v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-60102-CV0.pdf
The First Circuit has rejected the agency’s determination that an asylum applicant’s proposed social group was impermissibly circular simply because it referenced harm in its definition. “If an applicant's proffered social group, examined without consideration of the potentially circular language, shares independent socially distinctive characteristics, then neither the IJ nor the BIA may reject the group as legally invalid without further substantive analysis.”
The full text of Espinoza-Ochoa v. Garland can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Minnesota conviction for intentionally hiring or offering or agreeing to hire an individual who the defendant reasonably believed to be under the age of 16 years but at least 13 years to engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact is a sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony.
The full text of Aguilar-Sanchez v. Garland can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that a Kentucky conviction for complicity to robbery in the first degree is a crime of violence. In so doing, the court concluded that Kentucky’s complicity statute is a categorical match for generic aiding-and-abetting liability; that Kentucky’s first-degree robbery statute requires sufficient force to overcome the victim’s will; and that the robbery statute requires that an individual use force with the specific intent to accomplish theft.
The full text of Mwendapeke v. Garland can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2023/D12-07/C:22-2383:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3140778:S:0
The Sixth Circuit has remanded the asylum claim of an indigenous Guatemalan woman to further analyze if she was persecuted on account of her membership in two social groups: 1) Guatemalan Chuj Women in domestic relationships who are unable to leave; and (2) Guatemalan Chuj Women who are viewed as property by virtue of their positions within a domestic relationship.
The full text of Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has reversed its prior decision and determined that it has jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention against Torture to a non-citizen subject to a reinstatement order, so long as the petition for review is filed within 30 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision. The opinion also contains an excellent analysis of when threats rise to the level of persecution, and how to articulate sufficient nexus in a “mixed motives” analysis.
The full text of Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60307-CV1.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a New York conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance is not a controlled substance offense because it criminalizes possession of several cocaine isomers not found in the federal drug statutes and the statute is indivisible.
The full text of US v. Chaires can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3eff4c5-8ea3-4d44-b8f2-ca139dc304b1/11/doc/20-4162_complete_opn.pdf#xml=https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/a3eff4c5-8ea3-4d44-b8f2-ca139dc304b1/11/hilite/
The Board of Immigration Appeals has again narrowed the circumstances in which an asylum applicant can establish the requisite nexus between persecution and the particular social group comprised of the applicant’s family. “In our view, the Tenth Circuit’s approach is the proper way to analyze whether membership in a family-based particular social group is one central reason for harm. The question asked under the Fourth Circuit’s approach—why an applicant, and not others, is targeted—is relevant in evaluating the reasons for harm, but it is not the end of the analysis. When a persecutor targets multiple members of a single family, their family membership may be a reason for harming them, especially when non-family members are not similarly targeted. However, the fact that family membership is a reason for harm does not mean that it is necessarily one central reason. If a persecutor is targeting members of a certain family as a means of achieving some other ultimate goal unrelated to the protected ground, family membership is incidental or subordinate to that other ultimate goal and therefore not one central reason for the harm. Likewise, when a persecutor’s threats to harm family members are contingent on one or more of the family members acting or failing to act in a certain way—such as failing to comply with demands for money or other property—family membership is unlikely to be one central reason for that harm and instead will be merely a means to another end.”
The full text of Matter of M-R-M-S- can be found here:
