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

The Immigration and Nationality Act states that any alien who is “likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A) but has never defined “public charge.” The Department of Homeland Security sought to define “public charge,” via rulemaking, as an alien who was likely to receive certain public benefits, including many cash and noncash benefits, for more than 12 months in the aggregate over any 36-month period. The district court enjoined that Rule nationwide.The Fourth Circuit reversed. Invalidating the Rule “would visit palpable harm upon the Constitution’s structure and the circumscribed function of the federal courts that document prescribes” and would entail the disregard of the statute's plain text. The Constitution commands “special judicial deference” to the political branches in light of the intricacies and sensitivities inherent in immigration policy. Congress has charged the executive with defining and implementing a purposefully ambiguous term and has resisted giving the term the definite meaning that the plaintiffs seek. The court noted that, in cases addressing the identical issue, the Supreme Court granted the government’s emergency request to stay the preliminary injunctions, an action which would have been improbable if not impossible had the government, as the stay applicant, not made “a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits.” View "Casa De Maryland, Inc. v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding that petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that neither of petitioner's convictions for leaving an accident in violation of Va. Code Ann. 46.2–894 and for use of false identification in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2–186.3(B1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The court explained that petitioner's failure-to-stop conviction lacked the required culpable mental state and there is no morally reprehensible conduct. Regardless of the required culpable mental state, the court was not convinced that the offense of false identification has the required moral reprehensible conduct to qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order of removal and remanded with instructions that the government be directed to return petitioner to the United States. View "Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that petitioner's prior misdemeanor conviction under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A), for willful discharge of "any firearm" in a public place without resulting bodily injury, qualifies as a federal "firearm offense" for purposes of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C). The court held that the plain language of the Virginia statute, as supported by later acts of Virginia's legislature and by decisions of its appellate courts, prohibits conduct involving the use of a "any firearm," including antique firearms. Therefore, petitioner was not required to identify a prosecution under the Virginia statute involving an antique firearm to defend against removal. Accordingly, the conduct punishable under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A) is broader than the conduct encompassed by the federal definition of a "firearm offense." View "Gordon v. Barr" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's final order of removal affirming the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and other forms of relief. Petitioner claimed that he was persecuted and fears future persecution on account of his family ties.The Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition for review in part, holding that petitioner's jurisdictional argument -- that because his initial notice to appear did not include a time or date for a hearing, the immigration court lacked jurisdiction over his removal proceeding -- is squarely foreclosed by the court's recent opinion in United States v. Cortez, 930 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir. 2019), which was issued only after the parties' briefing in this case. The court denied the petitioner for review in part, holding that substantial evidence supports the determination of the IJ and BIA that petitioner has not met his burden of showing eligibility for asylum. In this case, the record does not compel the conclusion that family membership was at least one central reason why petitioner was threatened by his brother's attackers. Therefore, petitioner cannot satisfy the nexus requirement and is not eligible for asylum. View "Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that Proclamation 9645, which imposed certain restrictions on the entry of individuals from eight countries, violates their rights under the Establishment Clause, as well as under other clauses of the Constitution, because it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate national security concerns and is motivated solely by anti-Muslim animus.The government filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim based mainly on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018), which reversed a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Proclamation 9645 that had been issued on facts that are essentially the same as those alleged here. The Hawaii Court held that the government had "set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review" and thus plaintiffs had not demonstrated that they were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and held that the district court misunderstood the import of the Supreme Court's decision in Hawaii and the legal principles it applied. The court held that Proclamation 9645 restricts the entry of foreign nationals from specified countries, giving reasons for doing so that are related to national security, and it makes no reference to religion. In this case, although the district court agreed that the Mandel standard is controlling, it failed to apply the standard of review properly, moving past the face of the Proclamation to consider in its analysis external statements made by President Trump. The court proceeded beyond consideration of only the facially stated purposes of Proclamation 9645 and determined whether plaintiffs have alleged plausible constitutional claims under the rational basis standard of review. Under the rational basis standard, plaintiffs' constitutional claims failed because the Proclamation was plausibly related to the Government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaints. View "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's final order of removal. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court held that defendant's prior conviction for distribution of cocaine under Virginia Code 18.2-248, including distribution of that substance as an accommodation under Virginia Code 18.2-248(D), satisfies the federal definitions of an "aggravated felony" and of a crime "relating to a controlled substance" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reconsider. View "Cucalon v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's asylum application and ordering his removal to Guatemala.The court held that petitioner established that the past persecution he suffered at the hands of the Guatemalan military was on account of a statutorily protected ground: his imputed political opinion. The court held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that petitioner has established the requisite nexus between his undisputed past persecution and imputed political opinion. In this case, petitioner credibly testified that he refused to engage in inhuman conduct as a conscripted teenager in the Guatemalan military (G-2 intelligence unit), including murdering an infant, and that he threatened to expose the G-2's human rights abuses. Consequently, he was confined to a hole in the ground for ten months. Furthermore, he credibly testified that while he was in the hole, G-2 soldiers mocked him with his own words—telling him to call human rights groups to defend him. View "Lopez Ordonez v. Barr" on Justia Law

8 U.S.C. 1155 commits visa petition revocation decisions to the Secretary's discretion. Plaintiff and his stepson appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint alleging that the USCIS unlawfully revoked their I-130 family visa petition.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that 8 U.S.C. 1155 is discretionary and thus the court lacked jurisdiction to review the agency's revocation due to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The court emphasized that the dismissal of these claims in this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction does not preclude this court, or any other court of appeals, from reviewing them under section 1252(a)(2)(D) upon a petition from a removal proceeding. View "Polfliet v. Cuccinelli" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Fourth Circuit held that the Board erred in finding that the government rebutted the future-threat presumption. The court explained that it was the government's burden to prove either condition that rebuts the presumption, and the record did not support a finding that it did. Therefore, the court vacated the denial of withholding of removal and remanded for the agency to grant relief on this claim.The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's CAT application, because the record supported the Board's finding that petitioner did not meet the burden of proof. In this case, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to find that petitioner proved that there is more than a fifty-percent chance that petitioner's former partner would torture her and that Honduran law enforcement would turn a blind eye. View "Ortez-Cruz v. Barr" on Justia Law

On rehearing en banc, the Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to grant plaintiff's motion to set aside the agency's final action denying plaintiff special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status. In this case, USCIS interpreted 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) (i) to require a permanent custody order and thus denied plaintiff's SIJ application, dismissing his administrative appeal.The court held that the agency's rejection of plaintiff's SIJ provision -- that clause (i) requires a permanent custody order -- is entitled to no deference, defies the plain statutory language, and impermissibly intrudes into issues of state domestic relations law. Because the agency's interpretation of clause (i) was not in accordance with law, the court remanded to the agency to take another look at plaintiff's SIJ application. View "Perez v. Cuccinelli" on Justia Law