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

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, was ordered deported in 1997. In 2002, Petitioner married a United States citizen. Petitioner’s wife filed a Form I-130 petition on Petitioner’s behalf for an immigrant visa. In 2009, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted the I-130 petition. While the petition was pending, Petitioner moved to reopen his immigration proceedings and sought an adjustment of status based on his marriage. In 2010, Petitioner was arrested on six counts related to the illegal sale of prescription drugs. In 2011, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for adjustment of status and ordered him removed, concluding that the circumstances underlying Petitioner’s pending criminal charges outweighed the evidence favorable to him. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Petitioner appealed. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s purely discretionary decision. View "Mele v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Fuad Atieh, a Jordanian national, was placed in removal proceedings. Fuad subsequently married Jamileh Khudari, a U.S. citizen. The couple later divorced. Thereafter, Fuad married Raniah Atieh, a U.S. citizen. Two months later, Raniah filed an I-130 petition on Fuad’s behalf. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the I-130 petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the decision, concluding that the Atiehs had failed to prove the bona fides of Fuad’s first marriage. The Atiehs filed a second I-130 petition. USCIS denied relief, and the BIA affirmed. The district court affirmed, concluding that the administrative record adequately supported the denial of I-130 relief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA did not err, misconstrue or ignore the evidence, or fail to consider the record in its entirety in concluding that Fuad’s first marriage was fraudulent. View "Atieh v. Riordan" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, was served with a Notice to Appear charging him with being removable from the United States for overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. The Notice to Appear explained that Petitioner was required to keep immigration authorities apprised of his current address. After being served with the Notice to Appear, Petitioner moved to a new address without updating his address with immigration officials. The immigration court sent notice of the hearing to Petitioner’s old address. Petitioner did not receive notice of the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings on the basis that he had not received notice of the hearing. The Immigration Judge denied the motion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to reopen in absentia removal proceedings on the basis of not having received the statutorily-required notice where Petitioner never apprised the government of his new address. View "Ledesma-Sanchez v. Holder" on Justia Law

An Immigration Judge found that Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was removable because he obtained immigration benefits by fraud or material representation and because he entered the United States without valid documentation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that equitable estoppel should be applied to terminate proceedings against him due to government misconduct. The First Circuit dismissed the petition, holding that because Petitioner did not raise his equitable estoppel claim before the BIA, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the BIA, and thus, this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the claim. View "Batres v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Honduran national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge denied all of Petitioner’s claims for relief and ordered him removed to Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, concluding that Petitioner failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the record was consistent with the agency’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish past persecution and that Petitioner’s professed fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable, and therefore, Petitioner’s asylum claim and claim for withholding of removal were properly denied; and (2) Petitioner’s claim for protection under CAT was waived. View "Villafranca v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s applications based on an adverse credibility finding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on the basis that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding (1) ample evidence supported the IJ’s credibility finding, and the adverse credibility determination supported the resulting denial of Petitioner’s removal and CAT claims; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish any violation of his right to due process. View "Cuatzo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was placed in removal proceedings in 1997. Petitioner filed applications for asylum and withholding of removal. In 1998, an immigration judge denied in part the applications based on adverse credibility findings. Petitioner was not removed, however, and remained in the United States. In 2014, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his asylum and withholding of removal proceedings, arguing that his late motion should not be barred by the ninety-day statutory limit because of evidence demonstrating changed country conditions in China. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen, concluding that the motion did not meet the exception to the time bar for relief based on changed circumstances in Petitioner's country of nationality. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings was time-barred. View "Wang v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala who entered the United States unlawfully, requested asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure. The immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner voluntary departure but held that he failed to meet his burden of showing that he was entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding (1) new case law did not require a remand for reconsideration in light of the “clarification of the BIA’s position on the social visibility requirement of the asylum statute; (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to establish a protected ground for asylum because Petitioner’s proposed social group was not a legally cognizable particular social group; and (3) the BIA did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s appeal of the denial of his application for withholding of removal. View "Paiz-Morales v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Uganda, was served with a notice to appear in immigration removal proceedings. Petitioner petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Primarily on the basis of four incidents, Petitioner testified that he feared he would be detained or killed if forced to return to Uganda. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Petitioner’s testimony was not credible and, thus, denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, concluding that the discrepancies in portions of Petitioner’s testimony provided specific cogent reasons for the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. The First Circuit vacated the BIA’s order, holding that the record did not support two of the purported inconsistencies that the BIA considered critical in discrediting Petitioner’s account. Remanded. View "Mboowa v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a naturalized United States citizen, alleged that, in 2009, she was unlawfully detained in violation of her Fourth And Fifth Amendment rights when she was imprisoned for 24 hours pursuant to an immigration detainer so that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could investigate her immigration status. Plaintiff named as defendants three ICE agents - defendants Edward Donaghy, Bruce Chadbourne, and David Riccio. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, all on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied Defendants’ motions. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent was required to have probable cause before issuing a detainer; (2) dismissed Donaghy’s appeal on his Fourth Amendment argument regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the detainer and his Fifth Amendment equal protection argument for want of jurisdiction because these arguments did not present pure issues of law; and (3) affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Morales’s Fourth Amendment supervisory liability claim against Chadbourne and Riccio, as Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that Chadbourne and Riccio violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. View "Morales v. Chadbourne" on Justia Law