The Third Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals not to certify a late-filed appeal.
The full text of Abdulla v. Attorney General can be found here:
Viewing entries tagged
Third Circuit
The Third Circuit has determined that whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated extraordinary circumstances related to the delay in filing is a determination that cannot be reviewed by a federal court.
The full text of Real v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that the regulatory requirement that a motion to reopen present new evidence, not previously available, refers to “evidence that becomes available only after the final hearing before the IJ,” “irrespective of whether the petitioner’s appeal to the BIA is then pending.”
The full text of Suchite-Salguero v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that good moral character - as required for cancellation of removal - is a mixed question of fact and law that a federal court can reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.
The full text of Sanchez v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has again rejected the use of a subordination test (i.e., asking if a protected ground motive for persecution is subordinate to other motives) and an animus test (i.e., asking if the persecutor was motivated by an animus against the protected characteristic). In addition, the Court reiterated that just because a government is attempting to prevent torture does not mean it is succeeding, and that the efforts are not determinative of whether there is government acquiescence to torture.
The full text of Tipan Lopez v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that a federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 287 (false, fictitious or fraudulent claims) categorically involves deceit, and thus is an aggravated felony if it causes a loss to the U.S. government in excess of $10,000. “The action is submitting a false claim for the government to pay. The mental state requires lying because the claimant must know the claim is false. That is exactly what ‘deceit means: ‘the act of intentionally giving a false impression by ‘falsification, concealment, or cheating.’”
The full text of Lanoue v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has found that the Board of Immigration Appeals acted outside its authority when it certified a late appeal of a case granting adjustment of status to a non-citizen. The Court noted that once the 30-day appeal period had run, the applicant’s permanent residency status was final as a matter of law, and the executive branch had to utilize the provisions of the rescission statute if it wished to claw back that status. It was improper for the Board to circumvent the statutory rescission process by certifying an appeal of the immigration judge’s decision more than 30 days after if was issued.
The full text of Qatanani v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that an OPPM memo instructing judges to issue a cancellation of removal grant within 5 days of the visa number becoming available does not create any enforceable rights.
The full text of Zalaya Orellana v. Bondi can be found here:
The Third Circuit has upheld the discretionary denial of asylum to an applicant who entered the US using a passport and ESTA in someone else’s name, who had no family members that he could immigrate as asylee derivatives.
The full text of Thankarasa v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that the substantial evidence standard applies to a federal court’s review of the agency’s hardship finding in a cancellation of removal case.
The full text of Wilkinson v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania statute criminalizing eluding the police as a felony is divisible between three grading factors. The Court further found that the third grading factor could be violated by a driver who recklessly flees or attempts to elude law enforcement in an attempt to transport himself or another person to a hospital would still violate the statute. This conduct is not reprehensible, and thus, the statute is not a categorical match to the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude.
The full text of Ndungu v. Attorney General can be found here: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/202562p.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a non-citizen who was erroneously granted a certificate of citizenship, which was not revoked for 21 years, cannot use the doctrine of equitable estoppel to obtain a declaration of citizenship from a federal court. “It is unfortunate that the government erroneously issued Lall a Certificate of Citizenship in the first place. And it is inexcusable that it quickly discovered its error but failed to correct it for over twenty-one years. Of course, it is Lall’s own subsequent criminal conduct that has brought the consequences of the government’s dereliction down on his head. Still, that dereliction has fundamentally changed Lall’s identity and place in the world. He turns to us for assistance, but we cannot provide the relief he seeks. Not every wrong is ours to right. “
The full text of Lall v. Department of Homeland Security can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that the Sixth Circuit is the proper appellate venue for a detained matter filed with the Cleveland Immigration Court, even though the immigration judge was sitting in Virginia, and the applicant was detained in Pennsylvania. “Therefore, in the context of remote proceedings or hearings, the physical locations of the IJ and other participants are not what dictates the answer to the question of where the proceedings occur. Instead, we agree with the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits that ‘proceedings’ take place in the Immigration Court in which the proceedings began, unless there is a formal change of venue. Judicial venue under § 1252(b)(2) thus aligns with administrative venue.” The court, accordingly, transferred the petition for review to the Sixth Circuit,
the full text of Castillo v. Attorney General can be found here:
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 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 Third Circuit has determined that a New Jersey robbery conviction does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude under the pre-Diaz-Lizarraga standard because New Jersey’s definition of theft does not include an intent to permanently deprive others of their property. The Court further concluded that the force required to commit robbery is only that which is necessary to wrest the object from the victim, and does not require the infliction of any type of bodily harm.
The full text of Diaz Almanzar v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that Pennsylvania’s DUI statute - which criminalizes driving under the influence of controlled substances - is overbroad and indivisible with respect to the identify of the substances the person was using. The court noted that under state law, jurors do not to unanimously agree what substance a defendant is under the influence of to convict.
The full text of Pesikan v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Third Circuit has deferred to the agency’s determination in Matter of Wong that New Jersey disorderly persons offenses are convictions for immigration purposes. However, the court remanded for further analysis of whether the proposed social group of “Honduran women in a domestic relationship where the male believes that women are to live under male domination” is cognizable for asylum purposes.
The full text of Avila v. Attorney General can be found here:
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 Third Circuit has determined that an incomplete Notice to Appear (i.e., one lacking the date and time of a first hearing) precludes the entry of an in absentia removal order. “According to the Department, this disjunctive phrasing makes Madrid-Mancia’s defective NTA immaterial. Madrid-Mancia got a ‘Notice of Hearing,’ and that alone, it concludes, is enough for in absentia removal. That is not enough because § 1229a(b)(5)(A) always requires a complete NTA. And the Attorney General cannot cure defects in an NTA by sending out a self-styled ‘Notice of Hearing’ because announcing the time and date of a removal hearing for the first time is not a ‘change or postponement’ in the time or place.”
The full text of Madrid-Mancia v. Attorney General can be found here: