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

Defendant entered the United States from Ghana and received permanent legal resident status pursuant to a diversity visa. Five years later, Defendant applied for a diversity visa under the false name Willberforce Appiah. A few months later, Defendant applied for citizenship under his own name. The Government issued a diversity visa to Appiah. In the midst of his activities to create a second identity as Appiah, Defendant became a citizen. Defendant was later charged with and convicted of unlawful procurement of naturalization. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) as to Defendant's most substantial claim of error, the district court did not clearly err in allowing the prosecutor's peremptory challenges to two Asian-American potential jurors; and (2) the remainder of Defendant's allegations of error, including claims of constitutional violations to the allegedly improper admission of propensity evidence, were unavailing. View "United States v. Mensah" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, who had entered the United States without inspection. Petitioner applied for withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, and, alternatively, post-hearing voluntary departure. The immigration judge denied Petitioner's requests for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Eight months later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen to allow him to apply for pre-hearing voluntary departure, but because the motion was filed beyond the time allotted by the applicable regulation, the motion was addressed to the BIA's sua sponte authority to reopen. The BIA denied the motion and subsequently refused reconsideration. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for judicial review of the denial of reconsideration, holding that it lacked the authority to review the BIA's denial of Petitioner's motion to reconsider the failure to grant relief where Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely. View "Charuc v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States without admission or parole. In 2005, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service charged Petitioner as removable. After a hearing in 2008 at which Petitioner did not appear, the immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed in absentia. In 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen in order to submit an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration court granted the motion to reopen. A few days before the deadline for her application, Petitioner filed a motion for continuance seeking additional time to file the application. After the deadline had passed, the immigration court denied the motion for continuance and held that Petitioner had abandoned the application for cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) the immigration court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for continuance. View "Soto v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1969. In 2008 and 2009, Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in state court in two separate cases to possession of a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security subsequently initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) granted Petitioner's application for relief because of Petitioner's extended residency, strong family ties, and history of employment in the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacated the IJ's decision, determining (1) Petitioner's second state conviction triggered the statutory bar against her application for removal; and (2) Petitioner failed to establish a claim for relief on the merits. On remand, the IJ entered an order of removal, and the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because it could not overturn a BIA's discretionary denial of relief, and any opinion it reached on Petitioner's statutory or procedural claims would be purely advisory and beyond the Court's authority. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Russia, overstayed their visas and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications but granted them voluntary departure. In regards to Petitioners' asylum application, the IJ found that Petitioner Pavel Ivanov's testimony about mistreatment he experienced because of his Pentecostal faith was credible and consistent, but that the persecution Ivanov experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's asylum determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Ivanov established his eligibility for asylum. View "Ivanov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner later sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting that he was likely to be tortured by gang members if he were returned to his native country. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal, concluding that Petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not commit legal error in denying Petitioner's request for relief under the CAT because the conclusion that Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. View "Martinez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of El Salvador, was an ex-member of a violent criminal street gang based in the United States. After Petitioner was charged as removable, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner claimed that he would face persecution and torture due to his former gang membership if repatriated. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications, concluding that as a former member of the gang, Petitioner was not a member of a protected social group eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency's decision that Petitioner was not a member of a particular social group must stand; and (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner did not qualify for relief under the CAT. View "Cantarero v. Holder" on Justia Law

After removal proceedings were instituted against Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, Petitioner conceded his removability but applied for withholding of removal and for protection under the Convention Against Torture. In support, Petitioner claimed his unfavorable financial prospects in Ecuador made him fearful of returning against his native country. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen, which the BIA denied. Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the BIA reconsider its decision rejecting his claim of persecution as well as a second motion to reopen, alleging ineffective assistance of his prior counsel. The BIA denied both motions. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Petitioner's motion for reconsideration where the BIA correctly found that Petitioner did not allege grounds for withholding of removal. and (2) denying Petitioner's second motion to reopen because Petitioner did not carry his burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Muyubisnay-Cungachi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, applied for withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced removal proceedings against him. Because the DHS had also initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner's cousin, who also applied for similar relief, the two sets of proceedings were consolidated. After a hearing, the immigration judge (IJ) denied the cousins' applications, grounding her decision on a determination that neither man had testified credibly. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the orders of removal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's issues even though it was Petitioner's cousin who raised them before the BIA; (2) the IJ's adverse credibility determination was correctly upheld because it was adequately tied to substantial evidence in the record; and (3) the IJ's denial of Petitioner's mid-trial request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. View "Mazariegos-Paiz v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Albania, entered the U.S. in 2001 but ultimately overstayed their visas. Conceding their removability, Petitioners filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, contending that if they went back to Albania, they would become a target as a result of their political beliefs and activities. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' requests. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA and the IJ's denial of the asylum claim, holding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including evidence of a fundamental change in Albania such that Petitioners did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. As Petitioners failed to show they were eligible for asylum, they were similarly ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. View "Vasili v. Holder" on Justia Law