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

Federal authorities instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Chinese national. Petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and an immigration judge (IJ) entered an order of removal in absentia. Almost a decade later, Petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion to reopen as untimely. Petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner sought judicial review, which was interrupted by the First Circuit’s remand of the case upon a motion by the government for consideration of whether Petitioner qualified for relief based on changed circumstances in his homeland. The BIA concluded that Petitioner failed to present evidence demonstrating a material change in China’s country conditions since he was ordered removed. Petitioner then filed a new petition for judicial review. The First Circuit denied the petitions for review, holding (1) Petitioner was not entitled to an exception to the filing deadline due to lack of notice; (2) the IJ did not abuse her discretion in failing to apply equitable tolling; and (3) the First Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine Petitioner’s claim that the BIA engaged in impermissible factfinding. View "Wan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indonesian citizen, submitted an application for asylum, alleging that she experienced persecution as an Indonesian Christian. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s application for asylum and granted her request for voluntary departure, concluding that Petitioner’s account did not rise to the level of past persecution, nor did Petitioner demonstrate that she would be persecuted if she returned to Indonesia. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and vacated the order of removal, holding that the IJ’s and BIA’s legal conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Remanded to the BIA to make a well-reasoned determination as to Petitioner’s eligibility for asylum. View "Panoto v. Holder" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the mandatory detention provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), which provides that the Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who has committed certain predicate crimes “when the alien is released.” The general rule under section 1226 is that aliens arrested and charged with removal may be released on bond pending removal proceedings. Aliens subject to mandatory detention, however, are generally ineligible for bail. Petitioners, two aliens, committed a predicate crime listed in section 1226(c) but were not taken into custody by the Attorney General until years after being released from state custody. Petitioners filed separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that their detention without opportunity for release on bond was unauthorized by law. The district court granted habeas corpus relief in each case. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioners were not subject to mandatory detention under section 1226(c) because they were not timely detained under any reasonable interpretation of the statute. View "Castaneda v. Souza" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was physically removed from the United States to the Dominican Republic in 2002 after he received two state convictions with immigration consequences. In 2006, Petitioner entered the United States without inspection or admission. Petitioner subsequently filed an untimely motion with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reopen his proceedings. The BIA denied the motion to reopen. In 2008, Petitioner filed an untimely motion to reconsider the BIA’s decision. The BIA decided to sua sponte reopen the proceedings in 2008 and remanded the record back to the Immigration Judge (IJ). The IJ denied relief and ordered Petitioner’s deportation. Petitioner appealed. In 2012, the BIA determined that its 2008 order sua sponte reopening proceedings was issued in error and ultimately denied Petitioner’s 2008 motion to reconsider. Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA’s 1012 order effectively denying sua sponte reopening proceedings. The First Circuit dismissed the petition for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to deny reopening removal proceedings sua sponte. View "Guerrero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Somalian national, was charged with removability as an alien present without having been admitted or paroled after inspection. Petitioner filed a second application, the first of which was deemed abandoned, requesting asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief and ordered Petitioner removed to Somalia, premising his decision on an adverse credibility determination stemming from Petitioner’s “pernicious pattern of prevarication.” The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed in all respects. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for judicial review, holding that BIA articulated specific and cogent reasons in support of its adverse credibility determination.View "Ahmed v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, submitted an application for “temporary protected status,” which affords aliens protection from removal from the United States upon a determination that conditions in the alien’s home country prevent the alien’s safe return. The Attorney General designated El Salvador as a country whose nationals may qualify for temporary protected status after two large earthquakes struck the country. The Department of Homeland Security denied Petitioner’s application. Petitioner was later served with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Petitioner subsequently filed a renewed application for temporary protected status. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application after finding that Petitioner failed to provide “reliable” information that he was in the country soon enough to be eligible for temporary protected status. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit vacated the decision of the BIA, holding that the reasons the BIA gave for its decision were not adequate in this instance. Remanded.View "Shul-Navarro v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Indonesian citizen, unsuccessfully applied for asylum eight years ago and now seeks to reopen that earlier request. The court concluded that petitioner failed to show changed country conditions - the threshold requirement she must satisfy because she was late in filing her motion to reopen. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to make this threshold showing, the court denied the petition for review.View "Sugiarto, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. However, the IJ committed a clear error of fact in its factfinding, and this erroneous finding was recited in the BIA’s order denying Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review and remanded for further proceedings, holding that, in light of principles of exhaustion, it was for the BIA to address in the first instance Petitioner’s arguments that the error affected the BIA’s ruling both as to whether he had a well-founded fear of future persecution and as to whether there was a nexus between the persecution and a protected ground.View "Perez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States on a tourist visa and later conceded removability. Petitioner sought relief, including withholding of removal, claiming that she had a problem in Guatemala with a group of people known as guerillas. An immigration judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, concluding that Petitioner had not established past persecution or a clear probability of future persecution, and therefore, Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner was not eligible for withholding of removal, where the BIA’s determination that Petitioner had not suffered past persecution was not erroneous, and substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner had not established a likelihood of future persecution.View "Bedoya Lopez de Zea v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2011. Petitioner married a United States citizen in 2004, at which point he was granted conditional permanent resident status. Petitioner and his wife did not seek to alter Petitioner’s status so it would no longer be conditional by the deadline, and, after his marriage ended, Petitioner filed for a hardship waiver. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service denied Petitioner’s waiver request, and Petitioner was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings. Petitioner renewed his waiver request, which an Immigration Judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, finding that Petitioner did not make a showing that he entered into his marriage in good faith. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that the Board’s finding on the issue of whether Petitioner’s marriage was entered into in good faith was supported by substantial evidence on the record.View "Lamim v. Holder" on Justia Law