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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought asylum and withholding of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) denied relief and ordered Petitioner removed to China. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. About eight years later, Petitioner filed a motion with the BIA to reopen her case, claiming that she had converted to Christianity and that because conditions related to treatment of Christians in China had significantly worsened, she fell within the "changed country conditions" exception to the rule that a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision. The BIA denied the motion. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioner did not establish "changed conditions" in China for Christians practicing in unregistered churches. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, conceded the charges of removability for entering the United States by fraud and for remaining in the United States beyond the period of his authorized stay. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's applications for waivers of inadmissibility relating to fraud and unlawful presence and denied his application for permission to reapply for admission. The IJ then granted voluntary departure. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the BIA did not err in finding Petitioner was removable due to having gained admission to the United States by fraud; and (2) the Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's arguments that the IJ did not properly analyze the facts in denying Petitioner's applications for waivers of inadmissibility and permission to reapply for admission. View "Urizar-Carrascoza v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal in which he also sought protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging he was eligible for relief because he had and would suffer persecution because of his anti-Taliban political opinion and membership in a particular social group. An immigration judge denied Khan's application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err (1) in concluding that there was no government connection to support a finding of past or future persecution, and (2) in concluding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Khan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, filed an asylum application in 1997. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal in 2000. In 2012, Petitioner, who allegedly converted to Christianity in 2011, filed a motion with the BIA to reopen proceedings, claiming that, since the time of his hearing in 1998, circumstances surrounding the practice of Christianity had changed insofar as persecution of unregistered Christian groups had increased. The BIA determined that Petitioner had failed to establish changed circumstances in China and so his untimely motion did not qualify for an exception to the statutory deadline for a motion to reopen. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner failed to demonstrate changed country circumstances, and therefore, it was not an abuse of discretion for the BIA to deny his motion to reopen. View "Zhao-Cheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, married a U.S. citizen in 2002. The couple divorced in 2006. Later, Petitioner Petitioner filed a Form I-751 petition to remove the conditions on his residency. Petitioner did not file the petition with his ex-wife but argued that he was entitled to a removal of the conditions despite his marriage to a U.S. citizen ending in divorce. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied the petition. Petitioner was later charged with being removable. Petitioner conceded removability but requested relief in the form of a review of his petition for removal of conditions. The immigration judge (IJ) found that Petitioner had failed to meet his burden of showing that his marriage had been in good faith, therefore concluding that Petitioner's I-751 petition had to be denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that substantial evidence supported the IJ's decision to deny Petitioner's I-751 petition. View "Kinisu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Senegal and a citizen of Guinea, filed an application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application and ordered him removed to Guinea. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Petitioner appealed, arguing, among other things, that the IJ and BIA erred in failing to consider whether the threat of forced genital mutilation to his daughters, should they return with him, constituted a threat of direct persecution to him in the form of psychological injury. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the determination that Petitioner faced neither past persecution nor a likelihood of future persecution; and (2) Petitioner did not establish that his removal would result in his daughters' accompanying him to Guinea, and Petitioner's theory of direct persecution of him based on the possible risk to his daughters was foreclosed by the BIA, in a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statute, and by circuit precedent. View "Camara v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner sought filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, seeking relief. An immigration judge granted Petitioner's asylum application, finding that Petitioner had a reasonable fear in being subject to, at a minimum, having a forced intrauterine device (IUD) insertion and possibly sterilization in order to prevent her giving birth to future children. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in concluding that Petitioner did not face an objectively reasonable risk of having implanted an IUD by Chinese authorities through persecutory means or of suffering persecutory harm if she were to refuse to have an IUD implanted. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection. After the United State initiated removal proceedings against him, Petitioner applied for relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), alleging that he feared torture by guerrilla forces in Guatemala due to his father's military service and work in the civil patrol. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a threshold case for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. Nine years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA denied Petitioner's motion, finding that he failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions and failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA (1) properly concluded that Petitioner failed to establish a material change in country conditions necessary to reopen removal proceedings; and (2) did not err in finding Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum. View "Jutus v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner arrived in the United States more than twenty years ago seeking political asylum based on alleged persecution he suffered at the hands of a guerrilla organization that had the aim of overthrowing the government of Peru. In 2012, after three court of appeals opinions, one district court opinion, and numerous administrative determinations, an immigration judge finally granted asylum to Petitioner and his family members. After the First Circuit Court of Appeals entered final judgment closing the case, Petitioner filed a petition for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, seeking attorneys' fees incurred while litigating his case in federal court and attorney's fees related to the administrative proceedings. The First Circuit granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that Petitioner was eligible to recover the fees incurred in Castaneda IV, the administrative proceedings that followed, Castanea V, and the current fee litigation. View "Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was admitted to the United States as a permanent resident on a conditional basis based on her marriage to a United States citizen. After she divorced, Petitioner's status as a conditional permanent resident was terminated. Petitioner filed two applications for relief six months past the deadline. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the applications, finding, among other things, that Petitioner had abandoned her applications by failing to file them by the deadline. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed on the grounds of abandonment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the IJ acted within her discretion in finding that Petitioner had abandoned her applications for relief by missing the filing deadline; and (2) because the BIA's and IJ's findings as to abandonment was not an abuse of discretion, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by failing to address Petitioner's other arguments on appeal. View "Moreta v. Holder" on Justia Law