Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A Salvadoran national first entered the United States without inspection in 1985 and later received Temporary Protected Status (TPS). When TPS for El Salvador ended in 1992, the individual became a beneficiary of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), a form of discretionary executive relief that defers removal but is not rooted in statute. In 1994, with DED-based travel authorization, the individual left and reentered the country; upon return, a passport was stamped “Admitted,” with a notation referencing DED. After several similar trips and ultimately adjusting to lawful permanent resident status in 2006, the individual was later convicted of offenses that rendered her removable.Removal proceedings began in 2016 in Arlington, Virginia. At a hearing before an Immigration Judge, the individual conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), which requires seven years of continuous residence after being “admitted in any status.” The Immigration Judge found that entry under DED in 1994 did not qualify as admission “in any status,” concluding that DED is not an immigration status under the statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether entry under DED constituted admission “in any status” for purposes of cancellation of removal under § 1229b(a). The court held that “status” under the Immigration and Nationality Act means membership in a class defined by statute, and that DED, as an exercise of executive forbearance, is not a statutory status. Thus, the court concluded that the individual was not “admitted in any status” upon her return under DED, making her ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Cisneros v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without inspection in 2016 and was detained. He conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), seeking voluntary departure in the alternative. He asserted that he feared persecution due to his membership in two social groups: Guatemalan adolescents and/or youths, and Guatemalan adolescents and/or youths who resist gang recruitment based on personal belief. He testified that MS-13 gang members assaulted and threatened him, demanding recurring payments, and attempted to recruit him when he could not pay. He claimed he did not report these incidents to the police because he believed they were corrupt or powerless.An Immigration Judge credited his testimony but found that the proposed social groups were not legally cognizable and that his membership in those groups was not a central reason for his targeting. The judge also determined there was no past torture, insufficient likelihood of torture upon return, and no official acquiescence, denying all requested relief but remanding for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the Immigration Judge’s decision and wrote separately, finding the gang targeted the petitioner for economic reasons, not due to his membership in the proposed social groups, and found no clear error in denying CAT protection.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Board’s and Immigration Judge’s decisions, applying substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions. The court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the gang’s motive was economic and not based on the petitioner’s youth or resistance to recruitment. The court also found no evidence compelling a contrary conclusion regarding CAT protection. The petition for review was denied. View "Flores-Turcios v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Jamaican citizen who entered the United States on a work visa married a U.S. citizen and later experienced domestic violence from his spouse, who was eventually arrested. After his visa expired, removal proceedings were initiated, and an immigration judge ordered his removal. Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), survivors of domestic violence have a one-year deadline to file a motion to reopen removal proceedings. On the last day of this period, the petitioner’s counsel attempted to file the motion electronically, but the system rejected it. When he tried to file in person, a court clerk refused to accept the paper copy, insisting it be filed electronically. After continued unsuccessful attempts, the motion was finally mailed and accepted, but after the deadline.The Immigration Judge denied the motion to reopen, finding it untimely and concluding that the petitioner did not provide sufficient proof he was prevented from timely filing. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, with the majority agreeing that the record did not support the claim of impeded filing and that no exception to the deadline applied. One BIA member dissented, noting clear evidence of repeated filing attempts thwarted by the court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed both the Immigration Judge and BIA decisions. Applying de novo review to legal and constitutional questions and substantial evidence review to factual findings, the Fourth Circuit held that the record compelled the conclusion that the petitioner was prevented from timely filing. The court found this defect rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair and prejudiced the petitioner’s case, thus violating his Fifth Amendment due process rights. The court granted the petition for review, reversed the BIA’s denial, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Burey v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Honduran citizen, who was a lawful permanent resident in the United States, was convicted in Virginia of embezzling over $46,000 in scrap metal from his employer. After serving his sentence, the Department of Homeland Security detained him and charged him as removable, alleging that his conviction was for an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit under federal immigration law. His wife and daughter, also lawful residents, sought to help him avoid removal by filing a family visa petition, but the immigration process was delayed.An immigration judge denied further continuances for the visa process and concluded that the embezzlement conviction involved fraud or deceit, ordering removal to Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed both the denial of the continuance and the finding that the conviction was for an aggravated felony. Although the government mistakenly deported the petitioner during his appeal, they brought him back and assured the court of procedural safeguards. The Board's decision resulted in the petitioner’s removal, and he sought review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applying the categorical approach to determine whether Virginia’s embezzlement statute necessarily involves fraud or deceit. The court concluded that the statute does not categorically require fraudulent or deceitful conduct, as its elements criminalize wrongful taking but do not always require misrepresentation, trickery, or intentional concealment. Therefore, the conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony under the charged theory. The Fourth Circuit granted the petition, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ramos v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A noncitizen, originally from El Salvador, unlawfully entered the United States in 2003. In 2018, he was convicted of serious crimes, after which he was placed in removal proceedings while still incarcerated. During those proceedings, he conceded removability but sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, fearing for his life if returned to El Salvador. The immigration judge denied his application, finding his testimony not credible and ordering his removal. He was informed of his right to appeal by a set deadline. The noncitizen informed his attorney he wished to appeal, but due to delays in receiving and returning a fee waiver form, the notice of appeal was filed after the deadline. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed the appeal as untimely, and the noncitizen was removed.After unlawfully reentering the United States and being convicted of new state felonies, he was indicted for illegal reentry under federal law. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his prior removal order was invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as his attorney failed to timely file the notice of appeal. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the motion, holding that he had not exhausted available administrative remedies, specifically by failing to properly present his ineffective-assistance claim to the Board in accordance with procedural requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), a noncitizen must exhaust administrative remedies before collaterally attacking a removal order. It found that the appellant did not substantially comply with Lozada’s requirements for raising an ineffective-assistance claim before the Board, and thus failed to exhaust his remedies. Accordingly, the denial of the motion to dismiss was affirmed. View "US v. Gil" on Justia Law

A Salvadoran national entered the United States without authorization in 2016 and was later placed in removal proceedings. He sought relief from removal by applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming a history of violent encounters with the Zetas cartel and presenting evidence of threats and violence against himself and his family. He also admitted to a 2023 conviction for assault and battery against a family member in Virginia.An Immigration Judge (IJ) heard testimony from the petitioner and expert witnesses and reviewed documentary evidence. The IJ found the petitioner not credible, citing implausible elements in his testimony and inconsistencies with other evidence. The IJ denied all forms of relief, concluding that the petitioner was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal due to his conviction for a “particularly serious crime” and that he failed to establish a sufficient likelihood of torture to warrant CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision in full.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed both the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions. The court held that the IJ and BIA failed to apply the proper legal standard in determining whether the Virginia conviction was a “particularly serious crime,” specifically by not conducting the required two-step analysis in the correct order. This error required vacatur and remand for further proceedings. However, the court found the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the denial of CAT relief was not an abuse of discretion. The petition was therefore granted in part, denied in part, and the BIA’s order was vacated and remanded. View "Martinez v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A man born and raised in Jamaica entered the United States as a teenager on a temporary visa and later overstayed. After being convicted of drug and firearm offenses, he was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security and ordered removed to Jamaica. He sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that a powerful Jamaican drug dealer with ties to local authorities had already killed two of his cousins and would likely kill him if he returned. His mother and sister, still in Jamaica, corroborated these fears through affidavits describing threats and police indifference.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the man’s testimony credible, determined he faced a particularized risk of torture with the acquiescence of Jamaican authorities, and granted deferral of removal under the CAT. On appeal by the government, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed, concluding that the threat was too speculative and the evidence insufficient to show government acquiescence. The man petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review. Initially, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition as untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed the untimeliness but clarified that the filing deadline was not jurisdictional and could be waived. Because the government waived the timing objection, the Supreme Court remanded the case.Upon remand, the government raised a new jurisdictional argument. The Fourth Circuit allowed the petitioner to amend his petition to include review of his original removal order, curing any potential jurisdictional defect. The court then reviewed the merits and held that the BIA improperly applied a de novo review rather than the required clear-error standard to the IJ’s factual findings. The Fourth Circuit granted the amended petition, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the correct standard of review. View "Riley v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Bangladesh, who also held Canadian citizenship, resided in New Jersey where he was indicted in 2018 for distributing, storing, and possessing sexually explicit images of children in violation of New Jersey law. He pleaded guilty in 2019 to knowingly storing or maintaining at least 25 items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child using a file-sharing program that made the files available to others. Following his conviction and requirement to register as a sex offender, he was detained by U.S. immigration authorities and charged with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on the grounds of an aggravated felony and as having committed a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge in Richmond, Virginia, concluded that his conviction categorically matched a crime of child abuse under the INA, making him removable. The judge also denied his applications for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status as a matter of discretion. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the finding of removability and adopted the immigration judge’s discretionary denials. The petitioner then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.The Fourth Circuit held that the New Jersey statute, as it existed at the time of the conduct, qualifies categorically as a crime of child abuse under the INA because knowingly storing child sexual abuse material on a peer-to-peer file-sharing program creates a reasonable probability of harm to a child. The court denied review of the removability finding. Regarding the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, the Fourth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to review those determinations, as they were discretionary merits decisions and did not present questions of law. The petition was therefore denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Uddin v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A woman and her minor child fled El Salvador for the United States after the woman’s father threatened to kill her, following a long history of severe domestic violence within the family. The woman’s mother was murdered by the father’s foster brother, allegedly at the father’s direction. After the murder, the woman and her siblings reported their suspicions to Salvadoran authorities, but law enforcement did not pursue the accused or investigate the family’s allegations. The woman and her child then received threats from masked men, which she believed were connected to her father. Fearing for their lives, they entered the United States without inspection and applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found the woman credible but denied all relief, concluding she had not established persecution on account of a protected ground—rejecting her claims based on political opinion and proposed particular social groups (PSGs), and also finding no government acquiescence for purposes of CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal, agreeing with the IJ that she had not demonstrated the required nexus between her persecution and any protected ground, and declined to consider some PSG claims, believing they had not been raised before the IJ.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the BIA committed reversible error by failing to consider the merits of her claim based on the PSG “Salvadoran women,” as this group had been properly raised before the IJ. The court granted the petition in part, vacated the removal order, and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. However, the court denied the petition regarding all other claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Alvarado-Paz v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Honduran national, entered the United States in 2010 and was served with a notice of removal for lacking lawful admission or parole. After her first master calendar hearing, she requested and received a transfer to North Carolina. She subsequently retained counsel, who conceded removability and submitted an asylum application. Over several years, her removal proceedings were administratively closed and later reopened at the government’s request, leading to repeated postponements and delays, mostly due to procedural matters and circumstances beyond her control, such as pregnancy and exposure to COVID-19. Just weeks before a key hearing and associated filing deadline, her longtime attorney withdrew, citing lack of cooperation, and the immigration judge allowed this withdrawal without findings or explanation.Following the attorney’s withdrawal, the petitioner sought additional time to secure new counsel, explaining she had only learned of the withdrawal about a month before the hearing and was unable to find an attorney to prepare her case. Despite her objections and the fact this was her first such request, the immigration judge denied her request for a continuance and proceeded with the merits hearing, during which she represented herself. The judge found her testimony not credible and ordered her removal to Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the judge’s decision, concluding she had “sufficient time to retain counsel” and did not establish a violation of her statutory or due process rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision and held that the immigration judge violated the petitioner’s statutory right to counsel under the Immigration and Nationality Act by not granting her a reasonable and realistic opportunity to obtain new representation after her attorney’s withdrawal. The court granted the petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded to the Board to determine whether this violation prejudiced the petitioner. View "Rodriguez-Solis v. Blanche" on Justia Law