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

Chen, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1996. In 1997, the INS instituted removal, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Chen sought political asylum and withholding of deportation under the Convention Against Torture based on religion and political opinion. An IJ found his testimony incredible and denied the application, but, noting Chen's young age and crimeless record, granted voluntary departure. Counsel withdrew Chen's appeal, stating that Chen had returned to China. Chen was actually living in the U.S., had married and was starting a family, which grew to include three children. Chen later asserted that he thought the case had been resolved in his favor and was unaware of what transpired because his lawyer had died. In 2010, Chen was apprehended and sought to reopen his removal proceedings with the BIA. The BIA denied the motion as untimely. He filed a second motion, alleging changed country conditions and that the BIA, in formulating its decision, improperly considered a 2007 Country Profile. The BIA denied the motion, finding Chen's evidence inadequate to show that he will be persecuted or tortured in China on the basis of his religion. The First Circuit denied review. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Morocco, entered the U.S. in 2001 on a nonimmigrant visa. He overstayed and married a citizen in 2004. In 2006 the two had an argument that involved a physical altercation. Wife had to have brain surgery for her injuries and petitioner was convicted of reckless conduct. He served 11 months. Wife nonetheless filed an I-130 petition to establish that they were married. DHS approved the petition, but charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). He sought a waiver and adjustment of status. Petitioner and his wife presented different versions of the fight that led to his arrest. The immigration judge ordered removal, finding that petitioner committed a crime involving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal, finding that reckless conduct under New Hampshire law is inherently a crime involving moral turpitude. View "Idy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, entered the U.S. with his family in 1997, when he was eight years old. In 2009, removal proceedings were initiated and petitioner conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, arguing that because of his claimed conversion from Islam to Christianity in 2008, he will be persecuted if returned to Jordan. There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children. Because the conversion occurred while petitioner was the subject of a criminal investigation, it was regarded as suspect. The IJ denied petitioner's applications on grounds that he and his father were not credible witnesses. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated, finding the overall negative credibility finding suspect.View "Jabri v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born and raised in Ethiopia in an influential family in the Oromo ethnic community. His relatives were active in the Mecha Tulema Association, outlawed by the Ethiopian government in 2004, and were arrested for their activities. Petitioner obtained a false passport. A statement, signed after his arrest by ICE indicated that he did not fear persecution or torture if he returned to Ethiopia. In defense of removal, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. An IJ and the BIA rejected his claims. The First Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded for the BIA to address: whether, in light of the rebuttable presumption of credibility to which petitioner is entitled (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), he had not met his burden of proving his eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal and, if the IJ found petitioner's testimony "otherwise credible," whether section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) required the IJ to provide petitioner with notice of the need for corroborating evidence and an opportunity to provide that evidence or explain why it was not reasonably available. View "Guta-Tolossa v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2002, petitioner a citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the U.S. without authorization and was placed in removal proceedings, where he initially denied that he was removable. He sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he would suffer persecution if returned to his homeland, based on his purported membership in a particular social group, defined as young Salvadoran men who have resisted gang recruitment and whose parents are unavailable to protect them, and for his alleged anti-gang, pro-establishment "political opinion," 8 U.S.C.1101(a)(42)(A). An Immigration Judge and the BIA rejected the arguments. The First Circuit denied an appeal, finding that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political opinion View "Mayorga-Vidal v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner,a citizen of Guatemala applied for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, 111 Stat. 2160. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that he was statutorily ineligible for NACARA relief because he last entered the U.S. as a crewman (8 U.S.C. 1229b(c)(1)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that he was not a "crewman" when he last entered the U.S. Petitioner was given adequate notice that he was removeable for having remained in the U.S. longer than permitted; whether he was a "crewman" was only relevant to his petition for cancellation. View "Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Bangladesh, entered the U.S. in 1992 with his wife and son. They overstayed their visas. A daughter was born in 1993 in Los Angeles. Ten days later, petitioner filed an application seeking asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158 & 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16–18. In 2007, the government filed Notices to Appear in immigration court, charging the three with removability. They sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Petitioner testified that he had been attacked and threatened several times by opponents of his political party. The government noted 2007 reforms in Bangladesh. Petitioner also voiced concerns about his daughter, food shortages, substandard health care, and the cost of education for English speakers. The IJ granted voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit dismissed an appeal. View "Hasan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant arrived in the U.S. in 1985, at age three. He became a lawful permanent resident and submitted an Application for Naturalization (N-400). He orally went through the form at a Citizenship and Immigration Service office. He answered "No" to: "Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?" and "Have you ever sold or smuggled controlled substances, illegal drugs or narcotics?" His application was recommended and he was notified by N-445 of a mandatory oath ceremony. The N-445 contained questions to confirm that the applicant had maintained good moral character. Defendant again answered "No." He was naturalized in 2006. In fact, he had distributed cocaine 2004-2005, and, between the N-400 interview and the oath ceremony, was arrested for distributing cocaine and amphetamines. After pleading guilty to drug charges, defendant was convicted of making a material false statement to DHS (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2)) and unlawfully applying for and obtaining naturalization (18 U.S.C. 1425(b)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that admission of form N-445 violated his right to confrontation; that admission of form N-445 under the public records exception to hearsay was error; and that repeated reference to his prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial.

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. illegally in 1997. DHS initiated removal about 10 years later, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture,asserting that if returned to Guatemala, she would face persecution on account of her status as either a single woman with perceived wealth or a former "child of war." The IJ determined that her claim for asylum was time-barred; denied withholding of removal on the ground that she had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of persecution in Guatemala on account of a statutorily protected status; and dismissed her entreaty for CAT relief because she had not shown any governmental involvement in the feared harm. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review, finding no connection between her claimed fears and the government of Guatemala.

Petitioner entered the U.S. in 1992 without being admitted or paroled and filed an affirmative asylum application, asserting that he had been persecuted and had a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his political beliefs. He asserted that he was at risk because of his opposition to guerillas who occupied his village during the Salvadoran civil war and that he had been conscripted at gunpoint. Following an unexplained delay, federal authorities initiated removal in 2007. An immigration judge found the petitioner credible but concluded that he failed to substantiate a cognizable claim of past or future persecution, noting peace accords signed between the guerillas and the Salvadoran government in 1991 and the absence of evidence that any remaining guerillas would continue to harbor an interest in the petitioner. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal.