Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After entering the United States in 2021 from Brazil, the petitioner was apprehended by U.S. authorities and charged with removability. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming she feared returning to Brazil due to past abuse by her former partner. The abuse, according to her testimony, included two specific incidents of physical aggression, threats to her life, and ongoing harassment after separation. She cited her young age during the abuse and asserted that her fear of return stemmed solely from her ex-partner's conduct.An Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief, finding that the petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The judge also concluded that the alleged harm did not rise to the level of torture for CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the physical mistreatment described was not sufficiently frequent or severe to constitute persecution and that the petitioner’s proposed social groups were too amorphous to support her claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the agency’s decisions as a unit. Applying the substantial evidence standard for factual findings and de novo review for legal conclusions, the court held that the agency did not err in finding no past persecution, noting the incidents were isolated, did not result in serious injury, and that the petitioner remained in Brazil for years without further harm. The court also found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that she lacked a well-founded fear of future persecution. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner was ineligible for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Da Silva-Queiroga v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A woman from Guatemala endured severe physical and sexual abuse by her former intimate partner over several years. Her abuser confined her, deprived her and her daughter of food, and violently assaulted both. The petitioner escaped with her daughter to her family, but her ex-partner continued his violent behavior, including an attempted abduction and assault on her brother. After authorities failed to apprehend her abuser, the petitioner fled Guatemala and entered the United States in 2014, leaving her daughter with her parents. She sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution based on her membership in a particular social group: “Guatemalan women unable to leave a domestic relationship.”The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. The Immigration Judge concluded that the petitioner had not established the required nexus between the abuse she suffered and her asserted protected social group. The judge found that the abuser’s actions stemmed from his violent nature, not from a desire to overcome a characteristic of the petitioner’s group. The judge also determined that she failed to show that the Guatemalan government was unable or unwilling to protect her. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, finding no clear error in the judge’s conclusions regarding lack of nexus and government protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the petitioner failed to develop any argument challenging the legal and factual bases for the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling regarding the lack of nexus between the harm and her asserted protected status. The court concluded that, without a developed argument addressing this dispositive issue, her asylum and withholding of removal claims could not succeed. View "Cante Mijangos v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Two Nepalese nationals, a husband and wife, entered the United States and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Their claims were based on alleged threats and extortion by Maoist political opponents in Nepal, purportedly due to the husband’s political activity and his work for an international non-governmental organization. The couple presented testimony, including from two friends who corroborated the threats, and submitted documentary evidence such as letters from the Maoists, police, and their political party, along with news articles and country conditions reports.After their asylum application was denied by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the family was referred to the Boston Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge found the lead petitioner’s testimony not credible, citing inconsistencies and contradictions with his affidavit and other evidence. The judge concluded this adverse credibility finding was “fatal” to the asylum claim and also denied withholding of removal and CAT relief, reasoning that the same credibility concerns prevented meeting the higher legal standards for those claims.On appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, focusing on the lead petitioner’s lack of credibility and finding that, absent credible testimony, the claims for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief could not be sustained. The petitioners then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit held that the agency erred by failing to consider documentary evidence and additional witness testimony independent of the lead petitioner’s testimony, and by applying the wrong legal standard to the withholding of removal claim. The court vacated the Board’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Khanal v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident who had lived in the United States for nearly twenty years was twice convicted in Massachusetts for violating a statute that prohibits “open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior.” Following his second conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his convictions constituted two “crimes involving moral turpitude” (CIMTs) under federal immigration law. The resident contested this classification, contending that the Massachusetts statute did not require lewd intent and thus did not categorically define a CIMT.An Immigration Judge denied the resident’s motion to terminate proceedings and ordered him removed, finding that the statute was categorically a CIMT. The resident appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the order of removal. The BIA concluded that the statute necessarily required lewd intent and thus qualified as a CIMT.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court applied the categorical approach, examining whether the Massachusetts statute required proof of lewd intent as an element for every conviction. The First Circuit determined that a conviction under the statute did not require a finding of lewd intent or sexual motivation; instead, it could be satisfied by intentional, open exposure that caused shock or alarm, even without a lewd purpose. The court found a realistic probability that Massachusetts would apply the statute to conduct not involving moral turpitude.The First Circuit held that the Massachusetts statute is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because it does not require proof of lewd intent. The court concluded that the BIA erred as a matter of law and reversed the removal order. The petition for review was granted, the BIA’s decision was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Cabral Fortes Tomar v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Three Guatemalan citizens—an adult couple and their minor child—entered the United States in September 2021 and were subsequently served with Notices to Appear, charging them with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The adults filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), naming their daughter as a derivative beneficiary, while the daughter filed her own applications for the same relief. Their claims centered on threats and an attack they experienced in Guatemala related to their ownership of a hardware store, as well as concerns about general criminality and safety for their family.After a merits hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found the petitioners credible but concluded that they had not met their burdens for any form of relief. The IJ determined that the evidence showed only isolated incidents rather than a pattern of persecution, and that the threats were linked solely to their business. The IJ held that their proposed particular social groups—“Guatemalan small business owners” and the “Lopez-Ramos-Hernandez nuclear family”—were not cognizable, and that there was no nexus between the harm suffered and a protected ground. The IJ also found that the petitioners had not shown a reasonable fear of future persecution, nor that they could not safely relocate within Guatemala. Consequently, the IJ denied their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.The petitioners appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, making the IJ’s decision the final agency determination. Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s factual findings and that no error of law occurred. The court denied the petition for review, upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Ramos-Hernandez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A woman from Peru entered the United States in 2013 without valid documents and was later placed in removal proceedings. She conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, primarily based on years of physical and sexual abuse she experienced from her former partner, Mauro. She described a lengthy relationship characterized by escalating violence, failed police protection, and threats involving their child. De La Cruz claimed she was persecuted due to her membership in several proposed social groups, mostly linked to her status as a Peruvian woman in various familial or social configurations, and she submitted evidence about gender-based violence in Peru.The Immigration Judge found De La Cruz credible and her asylum application timely but denied all forms of relief. The judge concluded that the abuse she suffered was not on account of a statutorily protected ground, but rather arose from personal disputes within the relationship. As such, the judge found no sufficient nexus between the harm and the protected grounds necessary for asylum or withholding of removal, and determined her fear of future torture was speculative and unsupported for CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the Immigration Judge applied the correct legal standards and did not clearly err in the factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, applying substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that there was no nexus between the harm suffered and a protected ground, and agreed that the fear of future torture was too speculative to warrant CAT protection. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied. View "De La Cruz-Quispe v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Haitian national, Jonalson Dor, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In August 2018, he pled guilty in Massachusetts state court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute under Massachusetts law. At that time, both state and federal law included "hemp" in the definition of "marijuana." In December 2018, Congress amended the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to exclude "hemp" from its definition of "marijuana." The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Dor in 2019, originally based on earlier marijuana convictions. Those convictions were later vacated, and in 2023, DHS amended its charges, basing Dor’s removability on his 2018 conviction.An Immigration Judge in Boston denied Dor’s motion to terminate the proceedings, holding that the relevant version of the CSA was the one in effect at the time of the criminal conviction, not at the time of removal. The judge found Dor removable under the INA’s controlled substance provision. Dor appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s decision on March 18, 2025, agreeing that the time of conviction was the controlling point for determining if a state conviction matches the federal controlled substance definition.Reviewing the case de novo, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether the definition of a “controlled substance” under the INA should reference the CSA as it existed at the time of conviction or at the time of removal proceedings. The court joined other circuits in holding that the relevant CSA definition is the one in effect at the time of conviction. Because Dor’s 2018 conviction categorically matched the federal definition then in force, the court denied his petition for review and upheld the removal order. View "Dor v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Colombian man and his family fled to the United States after a violent criminal gang, the Gulf Clan, repeatedly threatened their lives to coerce his support. The threats began after he opened a bakery and escalated to in-person confrontations. Upon receiving an armed threat at his business, he reported the incidents to local police, who responded by stationing a guard at his bakery and blocking threatening phone lines. While in-person threats ceased, the family continued to receive telephonic threats from different numbers. Fearing for their safety, they left Colombia and entered the United States, where they sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.An Immigration Judge found that while the man’s testimony was credible, he failed to establish that the Colombian government was unwilling or unable to protect him from the private gang’s threats. The judge determined that the police had taken meaningful action, including posting a guard and blocking calls, and that the government was both willing and able to provide protection. As a result, the requests for asylum and withholding of removal were denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, agreeing with the Immigration Judge’s assessment that the Colombian authorities had demonstrated willingness and ability to protect the family.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, applying the substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings. The court held that the record supported the agency’s conclusion that the Colombian government was able to protect the family, even if it could not provide absolute security. The court denied the petition for review, finding no error in the agency’s determination or its procedural handling of the case. View "Restrepo Castano v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations brought suit challenging an executive order that denies U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States whose fathers are neither citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and whose mothers are present in the country either unlawfully or only temporarily. The organizations alleged that they have members who are expecting children affected by the order, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire found that the plaintiffs had standing and a cause of action for injunctive relief. The court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims, and that the equitable factors favored granting relief. It issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the executive order against the plaintiffs and their members, but not against nonparties. The government appealed the scope and propriety of the injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, with de novo review of legal issues and clear error review of factual findings. The court affirmed the district court’s determination that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Citizenship Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1401. However, the First Circuit vacated the injunction to the extent that it ran directly against the President and the agencies themselves, holding that injunctive relief should be limited to agency officials. The court affirmed the injunction as applied to the organizations’ members who are likely to be harmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump" on Justia Law

The case concerns challenges to Executive Order No. 14160, issued in January 2025, which seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States after its effective date if their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and their mothers are either unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. Plaintiffs include individual immigrants, nonprofit organizations, and a coalition of states and local governments. They allege that the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, the Separation of Powers doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the Order.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary injunctions to both sets of plaintiffs, finding they were “exceedingly likely” to succeed on their claims under the Citizenship Clause and § 1401(a). The injunctions barred federal agencies and officials from enforcing the Executive Order against the plaintiffs and, in the case brought by the states, issued a nationwide injunction to provide complete relief. The government appealed, challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, the scope of the injunctions, and the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s findings that the plaintiffs have Article III standing and are likely to succeed on the merits. The First Circuit held that the Executive Order’s denial of birthright citizenship to children born in the United States under the specified circumstances violates both the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), as interpreted by United States v. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent precedent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunctions in part, vacated them in part as to agency defendants, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Doe v. Trump" on Justia Law