These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
The Eighth Circuit has remanded a mentally ill Somali man’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture, ordering the agency to consider if he would experience torture in an Internally Displaced Persons camp.
The full text of Salat v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that deportabilty under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the INA (violation of a protective order) is governed by a circumstance specific approach, not a categorical analysis.
The full text of Alvarez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7ab57bdb-b5b8-4eea-80f6-61f7193bf77f/2/doc/22-6021_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/7ab57bdb-b5b8-4eea-80f6-61f7193bf77f/2/hilite/
The Second Circuit has determined that a non-citizen subject to a reinstated removal order can only seek judicial review within 30 days of the reinstatement determination. The non-citizen cannot seek judicial review of any subsequent decision in a withholding-only proceeding.
The full text of Bhaktibhai-Patel v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Virginia nunc pro tunc order to correct the identity of a controlled substance is cognizable for immigration purposes. The Board noted that a nunc pro tunc order is only available to correct a court error.
The full text of Matter of Dingus can be found here:
The Department of Homeland Security has designated Cameroon for Temporary Protected Status, protecting Cameroonians residing in the United States since April 14, 2022:
In addition, the federal register notification of Ukrainian TPS has been published, and now permits Ukrainians in the United States as of April 11, 2022 to apply:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-19/pdf/2022-08390.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has reversed a summary judgment decision in favor of a dairy farm that recruited workers through the TN program, forced them to perform menial labor, and threatened to have them deported if they left their employment. This case has useful analysis for T visa applications, though it was not brought in the context of an application for immigration benefits.
The full text of Martinez-Rodriguez v. Giles can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/19-35526.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that Montana criminalizes certain derivatives of cocaine not found in the federal definition of the drug.
The full text of U.S. v. House can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/15/20-30169.pdf
The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals incorrectly altered an Immigration Judge’s factual findings related to discretion without applying clear error review. Specially, the judge determined that the applicant’s removal would cause extreme hardship to his father, while the Board noted only that hardship “may” occur. The Board reversed the positive discretionary finding made by the judge, and the First Circuit remanded because the Board did not explain why the judge’s predictive finding regarding hardship was clearly erroneous.
The full text of Barros v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a disorderly persons offense in New Jersey constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes. In so doing, the BIA analyzed which rights a defendant had in a disorderly persons proceeding. The BIA noted the following protections must be in place for a proceeding to result in a conviction: oof beyond a reasonable doubt; and the rights to confront one’s accuser, a speedy and public trial, notice of the accusations, proof beyond a reasonable doubt; and the rights to confront one’s accuser, a speedy and public trial, notice of the accusations, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in one’s favor, and against being put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. “In short, we determine whether a proceeding is “criminal” by reference to those rights of criminal procedure guaranteed by the Constitution—as incorporated against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment—and which are applicable without limitation in all criminal prosecutions.”
“However, not all constitutional rights of criminal procedure are required in every criminal proceeding. Some rights are contingent. For example, the right to a jury trial applies only if the charged offense is deemed “serious,” and the right to counsel applies only if a conviction can result in loss of liberty. Because contingent rights are not required in every criminal proceeding, their absence cannot be dispositive with respect to whether a particular proceeding is criminal in nature. Similarly, the absence of a right to indictment by grand jury is immaterial, because that right has not been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The full text of Matter of S. Wong can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1488596/download
The Tenth Circuit has determined that “the acts of violence are so widespread that any reasonable adjudicator would find a pattern or practice of persecution against transgender women in Honduras.”
The full text of Gonzalez Aguilar v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110663824.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that the 30-day filing deadline for a BIA appeal is subject to equitable tolling.
The full text of Boch-Saban v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60540-CV0.pdf
The Second Circuit remanded an APA case for the agency to consider whether bearing arms on behalf of the Taliban under duress constitutes an “unlawful act” under U.S. law, such that the person is inadmissible on terrorism grounds.
The full text of Kakar v. USCIS can be found here:
The Department of Homeland Security has designated Afghanistan for Temporary Protected Status, available to Afghans in the US on or before March 15, 2022.
The announcement can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Connecticut conviction for larceny is not a theft-related aggravated felonies because it includes theft-by-fraud offenses. The Board concluded that the statute is both overbroad and indivisible.
The full text of Matter of Morgan can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has reversed a finding that a Florida conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling is a crime involving moral turpitude because there is no requirement that the dwelling be intermittently occupied. The court remanded for further analysis by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The full text of Lauture v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201913165.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant does not meet the criteria for a national interest waiver, as outlined in Matter of Dhanasar.
The full text of Brasil v. Secretary of Homeland Security can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202111984.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that Florida defines marijuana more broadly in its criminal laws than in the federal law because it criminalizes acts involving the stalks of the plant. As such, Florida marijuana convictions should no longer trigger controlled substance-related removability.
The full text of Said v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202112917.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that a 237(a)(1)(H) waiver is available to an applicant even if her U.S.-citizen father is deceased.
The full text of Julmice v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is a crime involving moral turpitude because the conviction “necessarily requires ‘deceit and an intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government.’”
The full text of Cupete v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that TPS holders who travel on advance parole after the commencement of removal proceedings are admitted back into the United States, and therefore, are not arriving aliens. Jurisdiction for their adjustment of status rests solely with the immigration courts (assuming they were not classified as arriving aliens prior to their departure), and if they have a final order of removal, they will first need to reopen their removal proceedings before filing their adjustment of status applications.
The full text of Duarte v. Mayorkas can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-20784-CV0.pdf
