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

A family of four from Ecuador, including Milton Geovanny Vargas Panchi, his wife, and their two children, entered the United States in August 2021. They sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming persecution based on race and membership in the social group of "Indigenous Ecuadorian men." Vargas Panchi cited frequent discrimination, including verbal harassment, threats, and a physical attack after a soccer game, as well as denial of medical treatment due to his indigeneity. He provided declarations, photographs, and country-conditions evidence to support his claims.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, and Vargas Panchi conceded removability but applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found his testimony credible but concluded that the attack after the soccer game was motivated by the opposing team's loss rather than his indigeneity. The IJ also found that other discrimination he faced did not rise to the level of persecution and that his fear of future persecution was not objectively well-founded. Consequently, the IJ denied his asylum and withholding of removal claims.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that there was no clear error in the IJ's finding that the soccer game attack lacked a nexus to a protected ground. The BIA also concurred that the other discrimination Vargas Panchi faced did not constitute persecution. As a result, the BIA concluded that he was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings, including the lack of a nexus between the soccer game attack and a protected ground, and the determination that the denial of medical care did not rise to the level of persecution. The court also agreed that Vargas Panchi did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Vargas Panchi v. Garland" on Justia Law

Rasheed Akinsanya, a Nigerian citizen, petitioned for review of the administrative denial of his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Akinsanya argued that he would be tortured by Boko Haram if returned to Nigeria. He had previously served in the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) of the Nigeria Police Force and cooperated in an investigation against his unit for corruption and ties to Boko Haram. After receiving threats and learning of attacks on his family, Akinsanya overstayed his visa in the United States. He was later convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, leading to his identification as a removable noncitizen.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Akinsanya and his witnesses credible but concluded that he was ineligible for deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ determined that Akinsanya failed to prove that he would be tortured with the acquiescence of Nigerian officials. The IJ noted the Nigerian government's efforts to combat Boko Haram, including designating it a terrorist organization and engaging in counterterrorism efforts, but found these efforts insufficient to establish government acquiescence.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the Nigerian authorities' inability to protect Akinsanya did not amount to acquiescence. The BIA emphasized that the Nigerian government was taking some measures to combat Boko Haram, and the potential ineffectiveness of these measures was not enough to prove government acquiescence.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the BIA did not adequately analyze whether Nigerian authorities would likely acquiesce in Akinsanya's torture. The court noted that the BIA failed to apply the correct legal standard for acquiescence, which requires identifying the government's legal duty and considering whether the steps taken by officials satisfy that duty. The court granted the petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Akinsanya v. Garland" on Justia Law

A Brazilian family of three, William Reginaldo Rodrigues, Debora Soares Gomes Rodrigues, and their son, W.T.S.R., entered the United States without inspection and were charged with being in the country without admission or parole. They sought asylum and withholding of removal, claiming fear of persecution from drug traffickers due to a debt owed by Mr. Rodrigues's brother-in-law, Daniel, and from the Gardingo family, a powerful political family in Brazil. Mr. Rodrigues testified that drug traffickers threatened Daniel and that the Gardingo family coerced employees to support their political candidates, but admitted that neither group had directly harmed or threatened his family.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Mr. Rodrigues's testimony credible but concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ determined that the Petitioners had not shown that they would be singled out for persecution by either the drug traffickers or the Gardingo family. Consequently, the IJ denied their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no clear error or compelling reason to overturn it.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that the IJ's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence, noting that generalized country conditions reports and Mr. Rodrigues's testimony did not demonstrate a specific threat to the Petitioners. The court also agreed that the Petitioners failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of persecution based on their political opinion, as there was no evidence that the Gardingo family was aware of or would target Mr. Rodrigues for his political beliefs. The petition for review was denied. View "Rodrigues v. Garland" on Justia Law

Janine Cavalcanti Viana Guedes and her husband, Jose Mauricio Oliveira Guedes Jr., entered the United States on B-2 nonimmigrant visas in 2017. Viana Guedes later applied for an F-1 student visa, and her husband received derivative beneficiary status. In 2019, Viana Guedes filed an I-140 petition for an EB-2 classification and sought a National Interest Waiver (NIW) to bypass the job offer requirement. USCIS initially approved her I-140 petition and NIW but later denied her adjustment of status application, citing misrepresentations and non-compliance with visa requirements.The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the appellants' case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) and the Supreme Court's decision in Patel v. Garland precluded judicial review of the USCIS's denial of their adjustment of status applications and the alleged revocation of Viana Guedes' I-140 petition and NIW.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) barred judicial review of the USCIS's denial of the adjustment of status applications. Additionally, the court found that the alleged revocations of the I-140 petition and NIW were unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), as these decisions were within the discretion of the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court concluded that the district court correctly dismissed the appellants' claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Viana Guedes v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law

The petitioners, Fidel Angel Lopez Quinteros, Evelyn de Los Angeles Polanco Ortiz, and their minor child A.A.L.P., are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They were issued Notices to Appear by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2021, charging them with being present in the United States without admission or parole. The petitioners conceded their removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). A.A.L.P. was listed as a derivative beneficiary on Lopez's application. The petition for review challenges only the denial of their asylum applications.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lopez and Polanco's testimonies credible but denied their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ concluded that the gang's threats were motivated by financial gain rather than the petitioners' membership in particular social groups. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision on asylum and withholding of removal and deemed the CAT claims waived as they were not meaningfully challenged.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petitioners' claim that the BIA erred by not remanding to correct the hearing transcript, as this issue was not exhausted before the BIA. The court also found no merit in the petitioners' contention that the agency failed to engage in a proper mixed-motive analysis. However, the court held that the BIA's finding of no nexus between Polanco's persecution and her familial relationship to Lopez was not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that Polanco's family status was a central reason for the gang's threats against her. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part, granted it in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Lopez-Quinteros v. Garland" on Justia Law

Chrisma Felin Mondzali Bopaka, a citizen of the Republic of the Congo, entered the United States without valid entry documents on August 23, 2018. He sought asylum, withholding of removal (WOR), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming persecution based on his political opinion and family membership. Bopaka alleged that his family was targeted due to his father's opposition to the government, and he feared harm if returned to the Congo.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Bopaka not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony, declaration, and documentary evidence. The IJ denied his applications for asylum, WOR, and CAT protection, concluding that Bopaka failed to meet his burden of proof. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no error in the adverse credibility determination and insufficient corroborating evidence. The BIA also denied Bopaka's motions to remand and reopen, citing a lack of new, material evidence that could change the outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the IJ's and BIA's adverse credibility determination, noting significant inconsistencies and omissions in Bopaka's accounts. The court also agreed with the BIA's assessment that the new evidence presented in the motions to remand and reopen was insufficient to alter the previous findings. Consequently, the petitions for review were denied. View "Mondzali Bopaka v. Garland" on Justia Law

Jose Rodolfo Escobar Larin, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that affirmed the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Escobar also petitioned for review of a separate BIA ruling that denied his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had issued Escobar a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability for being present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled. Escobar filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution in El Salvador due to his mental illness and opposition to gang authority.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Escobar credible but denied his claims, determining that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to meet the requirements for withholding of removal and CAT protection. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Escobar did not demonstrate extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse the late filing of his asylum application. The BIA also found that Escobar did not establish a likelihood of persecution or torture if returned to El Salvador.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA erred in its interpretation of the changed-circumstance exception to the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications. The court vacated and remanded the BIA's ruling on Escobar's asylum claims, withholding of removal claims, and CAT claim for further proceedings. The court also affirmed the denial of Escobar's motion to reopen, concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in that decision. View "Escobar Larin v. Garland" on Justia Law

Gleysi Idalia Diaz-Valdez, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States in May 2019 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing persecution by gang members in Guatemala. An immigration judge (IJ) denied her requests on August 6, 2021. Diaz attempted to appeal the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) by sending her Notice of Appeal via FedEx's next-day delivery service on September 4, 2021, expecting it to arrive by the September 7 deadline. However, FedEx delivered the package on September 8, resulting in the BIA summarily dismissing her appeal as untimely.Diaz then requested the BIA to accept her late filing, arguing that FedEx's failure to deliver on time warranted equitable tolling of the appeal deadline. The BIA construed her request as a motion to reconsider its summary dismissal but denied the motion, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Diaz had delivered the appeal to FedEx on September 4 and that the federal holiday was not an extraordinary circumstance.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA applied the incorrect legal standard by disregarding the representation of Diaz's counsel and failing to consider supporting evidence, such as the FedEx label and tracking information. The court also held that the BIA abused its discretion by not applying its own precedent from Matter of Morales-Morales, which allows for equitable tolling when a guaranteed delivery service fails to fulfill its guarantee.The First Circuit granted Diaz's petition, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, instructing the BIA to reevaluate Diaz's diligence and the extraordinary circumstances under the correct legal standards. View "Diaz-Valdez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Gerson Adonay Cortez-Mejia, his wife, and their two minor children, all natives and citizens of El Salvador, petitioned for judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). They sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming fear of persecution by rival gangs in El Salvador. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the petitioners credible but denied their applications, determining they had not demonstrated past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. The IJ also found they failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT protection.The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the petitioners' experiences did not rise to the level of past persecution and that they had not established a well-founded fear of future persecution linked to a protected ground. The BIA also noted the petitioners had not articulated a cognizable particular social group and had not meaningfully pursued their CAT claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case, focusing on the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA's determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The court noted that the petitioners' fear of gang violence was generalized and not linked to a protected ground. The court also upheld the BIA's finding that the petitioners had not established a cognizable particular social group. Consequently, the court denied the petition for judicial review, affirming the BIA's decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Cortez-Mejia v. Garland" on Justia Law

Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, a native and citizen of El Salvador, along with his wife Sayra Iliana Gamez-Mejia and their minor child, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their asylum requests. Urias-Orellana also sought review of the denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The denials were based on the grounds that the petitioners did not demonstrate harm rising to the level of persecution for asylum or withholding of removal and did not show they could not reasonably relocate within El Salvador. Additionally, Urias-Orellana did not prove it was likely he would face torture with the consent or acquiescence of a public official.The IJ found Urias-Orellana's testimony credible but concluded that the threats and assault he experienced did not amount to past persecution. The IJ also determined that the petitioners did not meet their burden of showing a reasonable fear of future persecution, noting that Urias-Orellana's relatives lived unharmed in El Salvador and that he had successfully relocated within the country without facing harm. The IJ further found that Urias-Orellana's CAT claim failed because he did not report his harassment to the police and did not demonstrate that doing so would be futile.The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the threats and assault did not constitute persecution and that the petitioners had not shown that internal relocation would be unreasonable. The BIA also upheld the IJ's finding that Urias-Orellana had not shown he qualified for CAT relief, noting his failure to report the mistreatment to the authorities.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and denied the petition for judicial review. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Agency's conclusions that the petitioners did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution and that Urias-Orellana did not meet the burden for CAT protection. View "Urias-Orellana v. Garland" on Justia Law