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

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Lesbia Asucena Alay, a native and citizen of Guatemala. Alay conceded her removability but sought cancellation of removal, arguing that her removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her two U.S. citizen children. Alay also applied for asylum and withholding of removal but later withdrew those applications.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Alay's application for cancellation of removal in December 2019, concluding that she had not demonstrated that her removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to her children. The IJ found that Alay's children, A.L. and F.L., would remain in the U.S. with their father, who could care for and support them. The IJ acknowledged the potential hardships, including loss of income and separation from their mother, but determined these were not substantially beyond what is normally expected from removal.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, recognizing the hardships Alay's children would face but agreeing that these did not meet the threshold of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." The BIA noted that A.L. and F.L. were healthy and doing well in school, and concluded that the hardships they would experience were consistent with those ordinarily resulting from the removal of a close family member.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and denied Alay's petition for review. The court held that the agency had properly considered the evidence and made an individualized assessment of the hardships. The court found no legal error in the agency's determination that the hardships faced by Alay's children did not meet the statutory standard for cancellation of removal. View "Alay v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States without inspection in 2004 to be with his son, Gustavo, a U.S. citizen. Petitioner sought cancellation of removal, claiming his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to Gustavo. The immigration judge (IJ) found Petitioner credible but determined he failed to meet the high burden of proving such hardship. The IJ noted Gustavo's behavioral issues but found no evidence of medical or learning disabilities and concluded that Gustavo's mother, who was his primary caretaker, would continue to support him.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision on two grounds: first, Gustavo had turned 21 while the appeal was pending, disqualifying him as a qualifying relative; second, the BIA agreed with the IJ's hardship determination. Petitioner then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.The First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision, which had adopted the IJ's reasoning. The court noted that it could only review legal questions and not factual determinations. Petitioner argued that the BIA failed to state the standard of review, applied the wrong standard, ignored relevant factors, cherry-picked evidence, and improperly required expert reports. The court found no merit in these arguments, noting that the BIA's decision was consistent with its precedent and that the BIA had appropriately reviewed the IJ's findings for clear error and the hardship determination de novo.Ultimately, the First Circuit held that the agency did not err in its hardship determination, finding that Petitioner failed to prove that Gustavo's hardship would be substantially beyond the ordinary hardship expected when a close family member is removed. The petition for review was denied. View "Goncalves Leao v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves Jacinto Xiquin Xirum and Bartola Romero Santos, who petitioned for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. The petitioners argued that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their two U.S. citizen children.The U.S. Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioners on July 10, 2018. They applied for cancellation of removal, which allows a noncitizen to remain in the country lawfully if they meet certain criteria, including proving that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. On October 10, 2019, the immigration judge (IJ) denied their applications, finding that the petitioners did not meet the burden of proving that their children would suffer such hardship if the petitioners were removed. The IJ noted that the petitioners were healthy, employed, and owned a home in Mexico, and that there was no evidence the children could not continue their education in Mexico or Guatemala.The petitioners appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision on March 27, 2024. The BIA highlighted the IJ's findings, including the petitioners' health, employment status, and home ownership in Mexico, as well as the children's fluency in Spanish and lack of learning disabilities. The BIA concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated the required level of hardship.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review challenges to the agency's factual findings. The court denied the petition in part, concluding that the agency's determination that the petitioners had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found that the agency had considered the evidence in the aggregate and had not ignored relevant facts. The petition for review was dismissed in part and denied in part. View "Xirum v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Russian citizen, Diana Avdeeva, married a U.S. citizen and applied for lawful permanent-resident status, which was granted on a conditional basis. She and her husband later filed a petition to remove the conditional status, but USCIS did not act on it within the required timeframe. After their divorce, Avdeeva requested the petition be converted to a waiver petition. She then applied for naturalization, but USCIS denied her petition, terminated her permanent-resident status, and placed her in removal proceedings. Avdeeva sued USCIS for failing to adjudicate her naturalization application within the statutory period.The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts remanded the case to USCIS based on a settlement agreement, which required USCIS to terminate removal proceedings, approve her petition, and conduct a new naturalization interview. Avdeeva was naturalized, and she dismissed her other lawsuit. She then sought attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), but the district court denied her motion, suggesting she was not a "prevailing party" and that awarding fees would be unjust due to the settlement terms.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Avdeeva was not a "prevailing party" under EAJA because the change in her legal status was not "court-ordered" but rather a result of the settlement agreement. The court noted that the district court's remand order did not resolve the merits of the case or retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, thus lacking the necessary judicial imprimatur. Consequently, Avdeeva was not entitled to attorney's fees. View "Avdeeva v. Tucker" on Justia Law

Igor Quinn-Goncalves, an undocumented native and citizen of Brazil, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that upheld an immigration judge's order for his removal from the United States. Quinn-Goncalves, who has been detained throughout the relevant period, acknowledged that his petition was filed late, arriving at the clerk's office three days after the deadline. His wife sent the petition via UPS on the last permissible day, following incorrect advice from the clerk's office that mailing by the deadline was sufficient.The BIA had previously denied Quinn-Goncalves's appeal of the immigration judge's removal order. The immigration judge had ordered his removal based on his undocumented status. Quinn-Goncalves then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but his petition was not filed within the required 30-day period after the BIA's final order of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the petition due to its untimeliness. The court emphasized that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(2)(A)(i), a petition for review must be received by the clerk within the statutory deadline to be considered timely. The court rejected Quinn-Goncalves's argument that mailing the petition within the deadline should suffice, distinguishing his case from the precedent set in Houston v. Lack, which applied a mailbox rule for pro se prisoners. The court concluded that it could not extend the filing deadline under Rule 26(b)(2) and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Goncalves v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2015, two Ecuadorian citizens, Mayancela and Santander, along with Mayancela's minor children, entered the United States without admission or parole. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged them with removability under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). They did not contest their removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) in the Boston Immigration Court denied their applications, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the denials.The IJ found that while both petitioners testified credibly, they did not meet the burden of proof for their claims. The IJ concluded that Mayancela did not establish that her persecution was on account of her membership in the particular social groups "Ecuadorian women" and "Ecuadorian females," attributing the harm to her cousin's violent behavior and substance abuse. The IJ also found that Santander's asylum application was untimely and that the government had shown a fundamental change in Ecuador's conditions, rebutting any presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that the evidence did not establish the requisite nexus for Mayancela's claims and that the government had sufficiently demonstrated changed conditions in Ecuador for Santander.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the agency failed to conduct the required mixed-motivation nexus analysis for Mayancela's asylum claim and vacated the agency's decision regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the agency's decision denying Santander's asylum and withholding of removal claims, as well as the denial of CAT protection for both petitioners, finding that the record did not compel a contrary conclusion. View "Mayancela Guaman v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Guatemala, have resided in Massachusetts for over twenty years and have four U.S. citizen children. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued Notices to Appear, charging them with removability. They applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, citing their son L.C.'s medical and educational needs. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their application, finding they did not meet the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement due to insufficient corroborating evidence about L.C.'s situation in Guatemala. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and later denied their first motion to reopen based on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Petitioners filed a second motion to reopen, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by their previous attorney, who failed to submit crucial evidence about L.C.'s educational needs. They provided new evidence, including country conditions in Guatemala and additional information about their children's medical and educational challenges. The BIA denied this motion, stating that Petitioners had not shown that their counsel's performance was so deficient that they suffered prejudice and that they had not established a prima facie case for cancellation of removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA provided insufficient explanation for its ruling, making it impossible to review the legal bases for its conclusions. The court noted that the BIA did not adequately address whether the failure to submit corroborating evidence about L.C.'s educational needs constituted ineffective assistance of counsel or whether Petitioners had established a prima facie case for relief. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chanchavac Garcia v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A couple from Guatemala, Gustavo Evelio Mendez Nolasco and Blanca America Niz Mendez, entered the United States without inspection in 1981 and 2001, respectively. They married in 2004 and have four children, three of whom are U.S. citizens and one a Legal Permanent Resident. They own a landscaping business and a home in Massachusetts. They applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that their children would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if they were deported to Guatemala.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied their applications, finding that they did not demonstrate good moral character due to undisclosed criminal histories and that their children would not face the requisite level of hardship. The IJ considered factors such as the children's limited Spanish skills, the family's financial assets, and the conditions in Guatemala but concluded that the hardships were not substantially beyond what is typically expected upon removal.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing with the IJ's assessment of the hardship factors and finding no need to address the good moral character determination. The BIA highlighted the children's limited Spanish skills, the couple's assets, and the potential for their oldest child to remain in the U.S. and petition for their legal status adjustment.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case and found no legal error in the agency's application of the hardship standard. The court noted that the BIA properly considered the relevant factors and evaluated them in the aggregate. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the agency's decision was consistent with its precedent and that the couple did not meet the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard. View "Mendez Nolasco v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a husband and wife from Guatemala, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision upholding the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. They argued that their removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their U.S. citizen children. The IJ found that the petitioners did not meet this hardship requirement, despite finding them otherwise eligible for cancellation of removal. The IJ's decision was based on the conclusion that the children would not suffer the requisite level of hardship if the family relocated to Guatemala.The IJ's decision was appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's findings. The BIA agreed with the IJ that the petitioners had not demonstrated that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children. The BIA reviewed the IJ's factual findings for clear error and found none, particularly regarding the health and well-being of the petitioners' son, A.B.M., who had experienced past trauma and had ongoing health issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA had legally erred by failing to consider key evidence, specifically a psychological report detailing the mental health status of A.B.M. The court held that the BIA must consider all relevant evidence in the record when reviewing the IJ's findings for clear error. The First Circuit granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the BIA to adequately consider the full record, including the psychological report, in its determination. View "Blanco Contreras v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national filed two petitions for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The first petition challenges the BIA's January 2024 decision upholding the denial by an Immigration Judge (IJ) of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The second petition challenges the BIA's March 2024 denial of his motion to reopen his administrative proceedings to seek a continuance or administrative closure while his U visa petition is pending.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against the petitioner in May 2022 for entering the United States without inspection. An immigration court found him removable and designated El Salvador as the country of removal. The petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal under the INA, and protection under the CAT. The IJ denied his applications, finding that his proposed particular social group (PSG) was not cognizable and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of harm if removed to El Salvador. The BIA vacated and remanded for further findings, but the IJ again denied relief. The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the BIA may have endorsed the IJ's use of an improper "ocular visibility" standard in evaluating the social distinction of the petitioner's proposed PSG. The court also noted ambiguity in the BIA's analysis regarding the scope of the petitioner's PSG. Consequently, the court granted the first petition, remanded for further proceedings, and dismissed the second petition as moot. The petitioner may renew his applications for withholding of removal and CAT protection on remand. View "Alvarez Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law