These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Eleventh Circuit has upheld the denial of adjustment of status to a Bangladeshi asylee who was a member of the BNP on the grounds that the BNP is a Tier III terrorist organization, and that the terrorism issue was not sufficiently litigated in his removal proceeding to preclude the consideration of it at the time of his application for adjustment.
The full text of Islam v. DHS can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913287.pdf
The Second Circuit has determined that a New York conviction for second-degree assault is a crime of violence because it requires an intent to cause serious harm to another person and the actual infliction of such harm.
The full text of Thompson v. Garland can be found here:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/17-3494/17-3494-2021-04-22.pdf?ts=1619101806
The Ninth Circuit has held that a nunc pro tunc custody order - entered after the child’s 18th birthday and purporting to retroactively modify a joint custody order to award sole legal custody of the child to a U.S.-citizen parent - is not effective for deriving citizenship under a prior derivative citizenship statute. “2013 state court order was a proper nunc pro tunc order. We hold that Congress did not intend for this type of nunc pro tunc order, one untethered from the facts as they were during Carino’s childhood, to give rise to automatic derivative citizenship under section 1432(a).” “We hold that where it has not been proven that a custody order was entered in error, was contrary to law, or otherwise did not reflect the true legal relationship between a petitioner’s parents, a nunc pro tunc order cannot retroactively establish a naturalized parent’s sole legal custody for the purposes of section 1432(a). “
The full text of Padilla Carino v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/18/18-72985.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a now-repealed derivative citizenship provision required the child of a U.S. citizen to merely manifest an objective intent to reside permanently in the United States - and not to have acquired lawful permanent residency - in order derive citizenship. That objective intent is met when the child enters the US lawfully and applies for permanent residency before his 18th birthday.
The full text of the en banc decision in Cheneau v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/13/15-70636.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has found that a woman who suffers chronic memory problems, and whose relatives misread the date of her hearing because of their belief that the first number in a numerical date represents the day of the month (and not the month itself), missed her hearing due to exceptional circumstances.
The full text of Hernandez-Galand v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/12/17-70538.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of Alyazji, which held that the five year period for deportability based on a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) starts with the last admission to the US that puts the person physically in the US. Thus, if a person enters on a temporary visa, then adjusts status, and then is convicted of a CIMT, the five years began at the time of admission on the temporary visa.
The full text of Route v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/06/19-72854.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an asylum applicant abandoned her application for asylum by failing to complete the biometrics process. The court faulted the applicant and her counsel for not following up with USCIS when a receipt notice was not timely issued after the submission of the request for biometrics.
The full text of Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/04/19-72090.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada drug statute is divisible with respect to the identity of the controlled substance involved in the offense.
The full text of United States v. Figueroa-Beltran can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/27/16-10388.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a grant of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) does not constitute an admission in any status for cancellation of removal purposes. The Eighth Circuit recognized that it had determined that TPS is an admission for adjustment of status purposes, but limited that decision to the adjustment context only.
The full text of Artola v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has deferred to the Attorney General’s definition of" “danger to the security of the United States” in Matter of A-H-.
The full text of Mirza v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60132-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that Immigration Judges have the authority to grant waivers in connection with U visa applications.
The full text of Jimenez-Rodriguez v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge may consider whether a respondent misrepresented the bona fides of her prior marriage at an I-751 interview, even if USCIS has approved an I-130 filed by a subsequent spouse.
It is strange that this respondent did not seek a 212(i) waiver before the Immigration Judge, since she was married to a U.S.-citizen spouse, and had a qualifying relative for the waiver.
The full text of Matter of Mensah can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has concluded that when the Department of Homeland Security states that an applicant may be removed to a specific country, the applicant may seek withholding of removal from that country in withholding-only proceedings, even if that country is different from the country that was originally designated in the reinstated removal order on which the withholding-only proceedings are based.
In this case, the applicant indicated that he was actually a citizen of Honduras, despite having been previously removed to Mexico, and the Department of Homeland Security indicated it would remove the applicant to Honduras.
The full text of Matter of A-S-M- can be found here:
justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1385691/download
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that New York conviction for first-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires the defendant to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs while knowing or having reason to know that his or her license is suspended.
The full text of Matter of Vucetic can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has determined that the “offense clause” of the federal conspiracy statute (which criminalizes conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States) is divisible with respect to the object of the conspiracy. The BIA then concluded that conspiracy to sell counterfeited currency is a crime involving moral turpitude.
The full text of Matter of Al Sabsabi can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that an individual who was a U.S. citizen when he was convicted of an aggravated felony, and who was subsequently denaturalized, is not deportable as an aggravated felon for that conviction.
The full text of Hylton v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914825.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has rejected an argument that Florida’s felon in possession of a firearm statute is broader than the definition of a firearms-related aggravated felony because it includes possession of antique firearms excluded from the federal definition. In so doing, the court noted that the petitioner had not identified any case in which Florida prosecuted an offense involving an antique firearm, and as such, had not demonstrated a reasonable probability that the statute of conviction was broader than the deportability ground.
The full text of Aspilaire v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912605.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has remanded an asylum case brought by a Cuban journalist for the agency to determine if the Cuban government has a pattern and practice of persecuting dissident journalists.
The full text of Cabrera Martinez v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914110.pdf
The Tenth Circuit, while assuming that family could be a valid particular social group, rejected an asylum claim where the “gang was threatening family members as a means to achieve an end that was unrelated to a protected ground.” The court recognized its decision was contrary to Fourth Circuit precedent involving a similar fact pattern.
The full text of Orellana Recinas v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/19/19-9596.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner cannot bring a collateral attack on an expedited removal order, citing a gross miscarriage of justice, in a reinstatement proceeding. “We have held that this language precludes most collateral attacks on the validity of the removal order being reinstated, unless the petitioner can show that a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’ occurred during the earlier removal proceedings. But even that narrow sliver of jurisdiction is foreclosed when the underlying order is, as in this case, an expedited removal order.”
The court also affirmed the legality of the reasonable fear regulations. “The regulation the agency adopted in response achieves both of Congress’s objectives. It allows immigration officials ‘to quickly identify and resolve frivolous claims to protection,’ thereby recognizing Congress’s desire to ensure the swift removal of non-citizens subject to reinstatement. At the same time, a screening process addresses the United States’ treaty obligations by making it possible for those who do have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture to receive a hearing before an immigration judge at which they can establish their entitlement to appropriate relief.”
Finally, the court recognized that given the abbreviated nature of a reasonable fear interview, it is unreasonable to expect a petitioner to be able to submit significant corroborating documentary evidence. “Non-citizens in reinstatement proceedings who express a fear of returning to their home country typically appear for a reasonable fear interview within a short time of their apprehension by immigration authorities. Many, like Alvarado Herrera, are being held in detention facilities and do not have legal representation. As a result, they cannot realistically be expected to produce for the asylum officer’s review the kind of detailed country conditions evidence that would be introduced during a merits hearing before an immigration judge. Nor would such a demand be consistent with the purpose of a reasonable fear interview, which is simply to screen out frivolous claims for relief in as expeditious a manner as possible. Thus, if a non-citizen provides an otherwise credible account concerning his fear of torture, his own statements can supply adequate support for claims about country conditions, at least for purposes of satisfying the ten percent threshold necessary to pass a reasonable fear screening interview.”
The full text of Alvarado-Herrera v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/04/13/18-70191.pdf
