The Fourth Circuit has determined that the 30-day filing deadline for a petition for review runs from the date of the order, not the date the order is served on the parties.
The full text of Santos-de Jimenez v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has determined that “the BIA’s decision to deny equitable tolling presents a mixed question we must review de novo.” The court noted that a “noncitizen needs to act only with ‘reasonable,’ ‘not maximum feasible diligence.’” The court also noted that when a motion to reopen is based on a change in law (in this case, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya), the diligence requirement begins no earlier than the change in law. But even then, the court must ask when the petitioner reasonably could have discovered the change in law, taking into account the petitioner’s financial circumstances and ability to access counsel.
“Still, he discovered his rights just one year after the Court enunciated them. Giving 'due consideration to the reality that many departed aliens are poor, uneducated, unskilled in the English language, and effectively unable to follow developments in the American legal system, we hold Williams could not reasonably have been expected to have filed earlier.”
The full text of Williams v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201854.P.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has found that it lacks jurisdiction to review any constitutional challenges to an expedited removal order, including any credible fear proceedings.
The full text of Mendoza-Linares v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/24/20-71582.pdf
The court has declined to rehear the case en banc:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/05/20-71582.pdf
The Tenth Circuit has determined that the reinstatement provision at 8 USC 1231(a)(5) prevents reconsideration of a removal order. The court also found that a prior reinstatement of the order is sufficient to trigger this bar, even if the order has not been again reinstated since the petitioner’s most recent illegal entry.
The full text of Zapata-Chacon v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110758299.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the jurisdiction stripping provision at 8 USC 1252(f)(1) does not affect a court’s authority to issue an injunction requiring USCIS to timely adjudicate SIJS petitions because section 235(d)(2) of the TVPRA (which contains the relevant SIJS provisions) was passed after the effective date of IIRIRA.
The full text of Moreno Galvez v. Jaddou can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/11/03/20-36052.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has reaffirmed the presumed validity of a Form I-213, even when it is used to determine that an individual was convicted of a particularly serious crime. In so doing, the court distinguished its decision in Alcaraz-Enriquez by noting that the petitioner did not challenge the accuracy of the Form I-213.
The full text of Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/31/20-72138.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has rejected the particular social group comprised of “Salvadorean women who are witnesses to gang criminal activity and targeted because they filed a police report.”
The full text of Morales v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201305.P.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that an asylum seekers was persecuted because gang members believed she was the heir to her late common law spouse’s land, and not because of her family ties to him.
The full text of Madrid-Montoya v. Garland can be found here:
The Second Circuit has deferred to the agency’s requirement that a protected ground be “one central reason” for persecution in order to qualify for withholding of removal. The Court concluded that the INA does not unambiguously provide the proper standard for assessing motive in withholding of removal claims, and thus, deferred to the agency’s interpretation as a reasonable one.
The full text of Quituizaca v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/528f9e9b-e56e-4402-b02c-11f5e4641530/2/doc/19-3470_complete_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/528f9e9b-e56e-4402-b02c-11f5e4641530/2/hilite/
The Second Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals reviews de novo an Immigration Judge’s determination that an applicant should provide corroborating evidence because it is not a factual finding. However, the subsequent determination as to whether an applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence is a factual finding that the BIA reviews only for clear error.
The full text of Pinel-Gomez v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has determined that an in absentia order must be rescinded when the Notice to Appear is missing the date of the first removal hearing. In so doing, the First Circuit disagreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential decision in Matter of Laparra-Deleon.
The full text of Laparra-Deleon v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a withholding case for further consideration of whether imputed membership in a gang can establish membership in a particular social group (PSG). The court noted that the policy reasons for rejecting former gang members as a PSG (namely, not rewarding former gang members for bad behavior) are not present when the gang membership is only imputed.
The full text of Chavez v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ use of a “willful acceptance” instead of a “willful blindness” standard in Convention Against Torture cases is unlawful. The court also noted that the question of whether a government official’s conduct constitutes acquiescence to torture is a question of law, subject to de novo review in the court of appeals. Finally, the court remanded for further consideration of whether MS-13 is a de facto government actor.
The full text of H.H. v. Garland can be found here:
The Department of Homeland Security has designated Ethiopia for Temporary Protected Status.
The announcement can be found here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/10/21/dhs-designates-ethiopia-temporary-protected-status-18-months
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a man who was viciously beaten by a group of men that included two police officers established that he was tortured by government officials.
The full text of De Leon Lopez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/10/21/20-71529.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that Minnesota’s definition of cocaine is broader than the federal definition because it includes isomers of cocaine not found in the federal statute. The court declined to apply the realistic probability test, finding the statutory language was unambiguous about the type of isomers criminalized in Minnesota.
The full text of US v. Owen can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed its precedent that a Missouri conviction for unlawful exhibition of a weapon is a crime of violence, even in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden. The court noted that only a plurality of judges required that the violent force required be directed at another person, which Justice Thomas’ concurrence required only that intentional acts be an element of the offense.
The full text of US v. Larry can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania conviction for retail theft matches the generic definition of a theft aggravated felony. There is an interesting discussion of Pennsylvania’s use of “permissive inferences” in its penal code.
The full text of Baghdad v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that a detainee in Louisiana, whose Notice to Appear was filed with the Jena, Louisiana Immigration Court, should have petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, even though the administrative control court (where documents were filed) and the Immigration Judge were in New York.
The full text of Sarr v. Garland can be found here:
U.S.. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced an extension of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma for an additional 18 months, from Nov. 26, 2022, through May 25, 2024, due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Burma that prevent individuals from safely returning. In addition, USCIS announced a redesignation of Burma for TPS for the same reason, allowing Burmese nationals (and individuals having no nationality who last habitually resided in Burma) residing in the United States as of Sept. 25, 2022, to be eligible for TPS.
The announcement can be found here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/secretary-mayorkas-extends-and-redesignates-temporary-protected-status-for-burma