These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Samuel Gomez was granted temporary residence, given him the ability to travel abroad and re-enter the United States. He did so, and was admitted upon return through a port of entry. His temporary residence was later revoked. The Fifth Circuit determined that this revocation did not undermine the fact of his admission at a port of entry.
The full text of Gomez v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60661-CV1.pdf
As of August 1, 2016, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has extended Temporary Protected Status for citizens of Syria until March 31, 2018. The re-registration deadline is September 30, 2016:
As of July 8, 2016, USCIS has extended Temporary Protected Status for citizens of El Salvador through March 9, 2018. The deadline for re-registration is September 6, 2016.
The full text of the announcement:
USCIS has announced an expansion of the the provisional waiver program, which now includes the spouses and children of lawful permanent residents, certain applicants with removal orders, and diversity lottery winners. The new rule goes into effect on August 29, 2016.
The full text of the new rule can be found here:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-07-29/pdf/2016-17934.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial of bond to an applicant who possessed a stolen, altered Syrian passport, which the Department of Homeland Security alleged had passed through the hands of ISIS. The Board of Immigration Appeals found these allegations sufficient for a finding that the applicant had not established he poses a threat to national security, and therefore, is a danger to the community, despite the applicant's testimony that he did not know the passport had been stolen by terrorists and the lack of evidence linking him to a terrorist organization.
The full text of Matter of Fatahi can be found here:
Due to a serious of government missteps, the petitioner never became a U.S. citizen. The former INS lost his mother's original naturalization application, delaying her naturalization until two months after the petitioner's 18th birthday, and thus, preventing him from deriving citizenship. When the petitioner applied for naturalization shortly thereafter, the examiner incorrectly told him that he did not need to naturalize because he had derived citizenship through his parents. The Ninth Circuit previously transferred the petitioner's case to determine if the government officials had acted with deliberate indifference to the petitioner's right to apply for citizenship. The District Court determined that there was no evidence of deliberate indifference. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no evidence that any government official was aware that their actions were jeopardizing the petitioner's right to apply for citizenship or that any government policymaker formulated policy that was indifferent to the rights of the petitioner and similarly situated individuals.
The full text of Brown v. Holder can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/02/11-71458.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has limited the mandatory detention provision for non-citizens convicted of certain criminal offenses. Specifically, the mandatory detention provision is triggered only if the non-citizen is transferred promptly from criminal to immigration custody. If there is a significant break between criminal and immigration custody, the non-citizen is entitled to a bond hearing. The court rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Rojas, finding it contradictory to the plain language of the mandatory detention statute. The court noted that it was not requiring an immediate transfer from criminal to immigration custody, but declined to specify what qualified as a prompt apprehension, noting that the case did not present the question of how quickly apprehension by immigration authorities must occur to trigger the mandatory detention statute. Nonetheless, the court did not alter the class certified by the District Court, which includes those not immediately detained by immigration authorities upon release from criminal custody.
The full text of Preap v. Johnson can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/04/14-16326.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania conviction for making terroristic threats - which criminalizes communicating, either directly or indirectly, a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another - is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The petitioner argued that “crime of violence” encompasses simple assault, and as such, the statute criminalizes threatening to commit a simple assault (a non-turpitudinous crime). The court rejected his argument, finding that the requirement of a specific intent to terrorize differentiated the statute from simple assault, and that such an intent demonstrates that the defendant acted with a vicious motive or corrupt mind.
The full text of Javier v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a California conviction for involuntary manslaughter does not qualify as a crime of violence because it includes reckless conduct. A crime of violence, as defined in 18 USC 16, requires intentional conduct.
The full text of United States v. Benally can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/01/14-10452.pdf
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions for an Indonesian convert to Catholicism. The court noted that the country conditions evidence of increased violence against Christians and the declaration from the petitioner's sister about her own experience as a Christian in Indonesia were sufficient to show changed circumstances, and when analyzed under the disfavored group analysis, sufficient to show a risk of individualized harm. As such, the court deemed the petitioner prima facie eligible for asylum.
The full text of Salim v. Lynch can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/01/13-71833.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed its previous finding that a conviction under section 422 of the California Penal Code is a crime of violence aggravated felony. In so doing, it rejected contrary case law from two other circuits.
The full text of Arellano Hernandez v. Lynch can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/01/11-72286.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a reinstatement order is not final while withholding and Convention against Torture proceedings are ongoing. As such, a person in the midst of these proceedings is not subject to any form of "mandatory detention," and is eligible for a bond hearing.
The full text of Guerra v. Shanahan can be found here:
In a published decision, the Third Circuit has determined that an Immigration Judge has no authority to grant a waiver of inadmissibility in conjunction with a U visa. In so doing, the court creates a circuit split, with the Seventh Circuit having previously found that an Immigration Judge does have this authority.
The full text of Sunday v. Attorney General can be found here:
In a published decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has attempted to define the conduct that falls under the false claim to U.S. citizenship inadmissibility and deportability grounds. The BIA laid out two requirements. First, the Immigration Judge must find direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that the false claim was made with the subjective intent of achieving a purpose or obtaining a benefit under the Act or any other Federal or State law. Second, the presence of a purpose or benefit must be determined objectively—that is, the United States citizenship must actually affect or matter to the purpose or benefit sought.
The BIA gave certain examples of conduct that might fall within or outside of the ambit of these provisions. For example, making a false claim to a bank in order to obtain a loan might not fall within the ambit of these provisions unless citizenship status is a prerequisite to obtaining the loan. Similarly, lying about one's citizenship status to the police for a minor offense (one unlikely to result in enforcement actions being taken by ICE under its Priority Enforcement Program) may not fall within the ambit of the provisions, but making a false claim to ICE in order to avoid removal proceedings would fall within the provisions.
The full text of Matter of Richmond can be found here:
In a break from its past precedent following the Supreme Court's decision in Mata v. Lynch, the Fifth Circuit has determined that equitable tolling can be applied to the filing deadline for statutory motions to reopen. In this case, a former lawful permanent resident moved to reopen his case 11 years after he was ordered removed based on several positive changes in law. The Fifth Circuit remanded to determine if these changes in law could toll the 90 day filing deadline typically applied to a motion to reopen. Though the Court expressed no opinion on whether tolling was appropriate, it did note that the petitioner would need to prove: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.
The full text of Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60865-CV0.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (trafficking in counterfeit goods) is not an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit because a conviction can rest upon conduct that is merely like to cause confusion or mistake, and does not necessarily require any intent to deceive another person. Thus, the District Court erred in finding that the applicant was not eligible for naturalization as person lacking in good moral character. The Court also suggested that a conviction under this statute would not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, and suggested that past precedent interpreting the immigration consequences of California's counterfeit goods statute may no longer be good law.
The full text of Wang v. Rodriguez can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/27/14-15779.pdf
In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that a dismissed indictment for conspiracy to commit money laundery, without more, is not sufficient to demonstrate that an applicant engaged in money laundering.
"Even assuming that participation in a conspiracy to commit money laundering constitutes 'reason to believe' that the participant in fact engaged in money laundering, the evidence in this case falls short. A dismissed indictment, without more, does not constitute “reason to believe” that the defendant committed the crime charged."
This language may provide valuable argumentation for lawyers dealing with "reason to believe" standards, such as those related to drug trafficking.
The full text of Obeid v. Lynch can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2016/07/21/13-70693.pdf
An applicant for adjustment of status initially indicated that he entered the United States with a visa. Later, he stated that he entered without inspection with the assistance of a smuggler. His application for adjustment of status under section 245(i) of the INA was denied and he was referred to Immigration Court, where he conceded that he entered the United States with admission. Nevertheless, the Immigration Judge denied his application for adjustment of status, finding insufficient evidence that he entered without inspection. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that different burdens of proof apply in the removability and eligibility for relief context, and thus, the applicant's concession of removability does not necessarily meet his burden of demonstrating that he entered without inspection, as required under section 245(i) of the INA. The decision seems to overlook the fact that individuals who enter with a visa, but fail to maintain lawful nonimmigrant status, are also eligible to adjust under section 245(i) of the INA.
The full text of Patel v. Lynch can be found here:
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0170p-06.pdf
The First Circuit has rejected a political opinion- and particular social group-based asylum claim from an applicant resisting gang recruitment efforts. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals both determined that the applicant was being targeted by gang members (and would face any future targeting) because the gang members wanted to increase their ranks, and not because of the applicant's anti-gang political views or because of his familial relationship to people in the United States.
The full text of Alvizures-Gomes v. Lynch can be found here:
Typically, a petition for review must be received by the clerk's office of the federal appeals court within 30 days of the agency's final decision. However, a detainee or inmate need only show that mailed his petition by the 30th day, in accordance with the detention facility's procedures for mailing legal documents. In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion to file new evidence (an extremely unusual procedure at a federal appeals court) to allow a detainee to prove that he had complied with this rule, and thus, that the Court had jurisdiction to review his appeal even though the petition for review was received by the clerk's office five days after the 30 day deadline. The court noted that when a detainee's declaration of compliance with the mailbox rule is presented after his petition for review, the court has the discretion to refuse to consider the declaration.
The full text of Barrientos v. Lynch can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/07/19/14-73178.pdf
