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

Hussein Ahmed Mouns, a native of Ethiopia and citizen of Yemen, has been in the United States since 1996. He applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 1997, which were denied by an immigration judge in 1999 and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 2002. Mouns filed motions to reopen his proceedings in 2003 and 2004 to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which were denied by the BIA in 2003 and 2005. In 2020, Mouns filed a third motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Yemen, citing the ongoing civil war and potential persecution due to his religion and imputed political opinion.The BIA denied Mouns’s 2020 motion to reopen, applying the stringent standard from In re Coelho, which requires the movant to show that the new evidence would likely change the result of the case. Mouns requested reconsideration, arguing that the BIA should have used the less burdensome "reasonable likelihood" standard from In re L-O-G-. The BIA denied reconsideration, reaffirming the use of the Coelho standard without addressing the L-O-G- standard.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court found that the BIA abused its discretion by not following its own precedents, which limit the Coelho standard to cases with special, adverse considerations. The court noted that the BIA did not identify any such considerations in Mouns’s case and should have applied the "reasonable likelihood" standard. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit granted Mouns’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision denying reconsideration, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Mouns v. Garland" on Justia Law

Hanumant Joshi, an Indian national, entered the U.S. on a student visa in 2015. Diagnosed with severe mental illnesses, including depression and schizoaffective disorder, Joshi experienced multiple involuntary hospitalizations both in the U.S. and India. In India, he was forcibly hospitalized several times, subjected to unknown medications, and underwent electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Joshi claimed that his half-brother and cousins were behind these institutionalizations to gain control over his inheritance.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Joshi's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found Joshi's asylum application untimely and determined that his institutionalizations were legitimate medical treatments rather than persecution. The IJ also concluded that Joshi's relatives were motivated by greed, not by his mental illness, and thus did not establish the required nexus to a protected ground. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, agreeing that Joshi did not demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution and that his treatment did not constitute torture.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found substantial evidence supporting the BIA's determination that Joshi's involuntary hospitalizations and ECT were legitimate medical interventions, not persecution. The court also agreed that Joshi's relatives' actions were motivated by a desire for his property, not his mental illness, failing to establish the necessary nexus for asylum. Consequently, the court denied Joshi's petition for review, affirming the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. View "Joshi v. Garland" on Justia Law

Isai Rivas Dubon, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in January 1999 and was ordered removed in May 2000. However, the removal order was never executed, and Dubon remained in the country. After successfully adjusting his status, he became a lawful permanent resident and applied for naturalization in August 2020. During the application process, Dubon disclosed a 2019 arrest for violating a domestic violence protection order, which was later dismissed. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) interviewed Dubon in March 2021 but took no further action for 14 months, prompting Dubon to file a lawsuit in federal district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) in June 2022.The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina remanded Dubon’s naturalization application to USCIS, instructing the agency to decide within 15 days. The court found that USCIS had a valid reason for the delay due to Dubon’s outstanding removal order, which was terminated in August 2022. USCIS denied Dubon’s naturalization application six days after the remand, citing his 2019 arrest as a disqualifying factor for demonstrating "good moral character." Dubon appealed the district court’s remand order, arguing that the agency had not shown good cause for its delay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that a remand order under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) is neither a final decision nor appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that such remand orders are interlocutory and do not end the litigation on the merits, thus falling outside the scope of appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court concluded that Dubon’s interest in having his application decided by the district court rather than USCIS did not justify an immediate appeal. View "Dubon v. Jaddou" on Justia Law

Dolores Ortega-Cordova, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States without inspection in 2002. In 2012, he was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia, and charged with solicitation of prostitution under Virginia Code § 18.2-346(B). He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment, with 86 days suspended, and fined. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Ortega-Cordova conceded removability but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Ortega-Cordova’s application, finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction for solicitation of prostitution was deemed a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The IJ relied on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) long-standing position that prostitution-related offenses are morally turpitudinous. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, noting that Ortega-Cordova failed to prove that solicitation of prostitution is no longer considered morally reprehensible by society.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court concluded that solicitation of prostitution under Virginia law categorically involves moral turpitude because it debases a moral norm against treating sex as a commercial transaction. The court rejected Ortega-Cordova’s arguments that societal views on prostitution are evolving and that the statute criminalizes consensual conduct between adults. The court also dismissed his procedural arguments, including the claim that the BIA abused its discretion by not referring his case to a three-member panel. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit denied Ortega-Cordova’s petition for review. View "Ortega-Cordova v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves Raymond Sefakor Yao Azumah, a Ghanaian national who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2010. After a trip to Ghana in 2014, Azumah was deemed inadmissible due to an intervening embezzlement conviction. Despite this, the government paroled Azumah into the country and initiated removal proceedings against him. These proceedings were later dismissed, and Azumah applied for citizenship. However, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services denied his application, arguing that Azumah was statutorily ineligible because he was not “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” upon his return to the United States in 2014. The district court affirmed this denial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the lower court's decision. The court noted that Azumah was indeed “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” at all relevant times, including 2010, 2014, and when he sought citizenship, because he had the status of a legal permanent resident of the United States. The court did not interpret the agency regulation to impose upon Azumah the additional burden of showing that he was “lawfully admitted” rather than paroled when he returned to the United States in 2014. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Azumah v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services" on Justia Law

The case involves an American citizen and her noncitizen husband who sued two U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials, alleging that USCIS unreasonably delayed adjudicating a waiver application the husband submitted two years prior. The plaintiffs argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act granted subject-matter jurisdiction over their claims. The district court dismissed their claims, concluding that language in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that denies courts jurisdiction over suits based on agency “decisions or actions” also bars suits over agency inaction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, but for different reasons. The appellate court found that the district court erred in interpreting the INA's jurisdictional bar to include agency inaction. However, the court concluded that no statute or regulation requires USCIS to adjudicate the husband’s waiver application, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims. The court noted that while the delay in adjudication was stressful for the plaintiffs, their complaint should be addressed to the political branches, as the court lacked jurisdiction to order the relief sought. View "Lovo v. Miller" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Virginia Garcia Cortes, a Mexican citizen, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied Garcia Cortes’s application on the basis that she failed to make the requisite showing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) that her removal would impose “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on her daughter.The Immigration Judge found that Garcia Cortes satisfied the first three statutory eligibility requirements for cancellation of removal. However, he rejected Garcia Cortes’s request after concluding that she could not satisfy the fourth statutory requirement—whether her removal would impose “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on a family member who was an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The Immigration Judge ordered that Garcia Cortes either voluntarily leave the country or be removed. Garcia Cortes appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”). A divided three-member panel of the Board adopted and affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the facts as found by the Immigration Judge do not support a determination that Garcia Cortes’s daughter would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Garcia Cortes was removed. However, because the Immigration Judge failed to consider key portions of a therapist’s letter that was central to Garcia Cortes’s argument, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia Cortes v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case involves Elsy and Isai Diaz-Hernandez, siblings from El Salvador who illegally entered the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. They claimed that they had suffered harm or fear of harm in El Salvador from their maternal uncle, who abused them to avenge his earlier deportation from the United States, for which he blamed their mother. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found that revenge was not a central reason for the uncle’s abuse of Elsy and Isai but at most a “tangential reason.” The IJ concluded that Elsy and Isai failed to establish the required nexus between their harm and a protected ground and therefore the requirements for either asylum or withholding of removal.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision and dismissed the appeal. The BIA rejected the petitioners’ argument that the evidence showed that their relationship to their mother was “at least one central reason” for the uncle’s abusive behavior against them. The BIA noted that the IJ’s finding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the necessary nexus between the harm and a protected ground was “a classic factual question,” and after reviewing the facts, concluded that the IJ did not clearly err.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the petitions for review, concluding that substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that the petitioners failed to establish the requisite nexus between the harm they feared and their family tie. The court also rejected their argument that the BIA applied the wrong standard for assessing whether they met their burden to prove the required nexus with respect to their withholding of removal claims. View "Diaz-Hernandez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Gilfredo Lopez-Sorto, a Salvadoran native and former gang member, sought review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying him deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lopez-Sorto, who had been a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. since 1982, was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges in 1995, and served 26 years in prison. Upon his release, he was transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and removal proceedings were initiated against him. He did not challenge his removability, but sought deferral of removal under the CAT, fearing torture if deported to El Salvador due to his gang-related tattoos and criminal record.The IJ concluded that Lopez-Sorto had not established that he would more likely than not be tortured if he returned to El Salvador, and ordered his removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Lopez-Sorto appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing that the IJ and BIA used the wrong legal standard to evaluate his claim, failed to aggregate his various asserted risks of torture, and ignored his experts’ testimony.The Fourth Circuit disagreed with Lopez-Sorto's arguments. It found that the IJ and BIA had applied the correct legal standard, properly aggregated the asserted risks of torture, and did not ignore the expert witnesses' testimony. The court therefore denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Sorto v. Garland" on Justia Law

David Orlando Marquez Cruz, a Salvadoran national and lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of attempted second degree child sexual abuse under Washington, D.C., law. The conviction stemmed from a sexual relationship he had with a fifteen-year-old child. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) on the grounds of being a noncitizen convicted of a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, and as an aggravated felon. Cruz denied that he was removable and requested that his removal be cancelled as a matter of discretion.The immigration judge found Cruz removable based on his conviction of a crime of child abuse, but dismissed the aggravated felony removal charge. The judge declined to cancel Cruz’s removal and ordered him removed. Cruz appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), challenging the immigration judge’s finding that his D.C. conviction qualified as a crime of child abuse. The BIA agreed with the immigration judge and dismissed the appeal. Cruz then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review.The Fourth Circuit held that Cruz’s conviction for attempted second degree child sexual abuse under D.C. law qualifies as a removable crime of child abuse. The court rejected Cruz’s arguments that a crime of child abuse under the INA does not cover attempts and that statutes imposing strict liability as to a victim’s age cannot satisfy the mens rea requirement because they do not require a culpable mental state. The court concluded that a crime of child abuse requires a culpable mens rea and an actus reus of conduct that either injures a child or creates a sufficiently high risk that a child will be harmed. The court denied Cruz's petition for review. View "Marquez Cruz v. Garland" on Justia Law