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

Petitioner, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, appealed the denial of his application for asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed past persecution based on his membership in a political party called the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo. The IJ found that petitioner was not credible and the BIA affirmed. The court held that the rejection of petitioner's asylum application, largely on the basis of an adverse credibility finding, was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review insofar as it challenged the denial of the application for asylum; vacated the BIA and IJ's orders with regard thereto; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ilunga v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, who had pled guilty to arson under Maryland's arson-in-the-first-degree statute, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of her appeal from the IJ's ruling that the arson conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E), and order of removal. Applying Chevron deference, the court concluded that petitioner's state arson conviction unambiguously qualifies as an aggravated felony under section 1101(a)(43)(E), and even if an ambiguity existed, the BIA's interpretation was reasonable. The court rejected as meritless petitioner's alternative arguments that the BIA should have applied the rule of lenity and that the BIA's application of Matter of Bautista was impermissibly retroactive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Espinal-Andrades v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal. The BIA determined that petitioner was removable based on his past conviction under Virginia Code 18.2-102 for the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. The court concluded, however, that the Virginia offense did not constitute an "aggravated felony," where the full range of conduct covered by the Virginia crime of "unauthorized use" does not qualify as a "theft offense," as that term has been defined by the BIA. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the order of removal. View "Castillo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's renewed application for adjustment of status and order of removal, as well as petitioner's motion to reopen and reconsider. Joining the BIA and the Ninth Circuit, the court held that the deadline in 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) operates as a statue of repose that is not subject to equitable tolling. Therefore, the failures of petitioner's original counsel to file a timely labor certification to equitably toll the deadline under section 1255(i) is not a question the court need to consider. Because petitioner did not meet the deadline and because the deadline is a statute of repose not subject to equitable tolling, petitioner is not eligible for relief and his motion to reopen was properly denied on that basis alone. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed in part. View "Prasad v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Egyptian native and citizen, was convicted in Virginia state court of grand larceny under VA. Code Ann. 18.2-95 for taking, stealing, and carrying away two pool cues valued in excess of $200 following a dispute with his opponent in a local pool league. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's conviction constituted an aggravated felony under section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43). The court concluded that mere use of the disjunctive "or" in the definition of a crime does not automatically render it divisible. The court held that, under the court's recent decisions construing Descamps v. United States, the Virginia crime of larceny is indivisible as a matter of law. Therefore, the court concluded that the modified categorical approach has no role to play in this case and, instead, the categorical approach is applicable. Under the categorical approach, petitioner's grand larceny conviction does not constitute an aggravated felony under the INA. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed the BIA's ruling otherwise, and remanded with instructions to vacate petitioner's order of removal. View "Omargharib v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the denial of his application for adjustment of status. Petitioner, a native of Ghana, had used the identities of two American citizens to establish his eligibility for employment at McDonald's and Target. The court denied the petition for review, agreeing with the BIA that an alien, like petitioner, who falsely claims United States citizenship in seeking private employment is inadmissible as a matter of law under the false claim bar, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). View "Dakura v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner is an Afghan citizen who has lived in the United States most of his life and was found ineligible for cancellation of removal. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for removal because of a crime he committed within the first seven years of residence in the United States. Petitioner argued that the BIA should have applied the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2) because the offense and guilty plea occurred before Congress promulgated the stop-time rule. The court concluded that Congress did not expressly and unambiguously prescribe the proper reach of the stop-time rule. Under the second step of the analysis in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, the court concluded that a retroactive application of the stop-time rule would impose new and unforeseen legal consequences to prior events. Accordingly, the court applied a traditional presumption against retroactivity and granted the petition for review. View "Jaghoori v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner grew up a Christian in Indonesia, a majority Muslim-country. Petitioner contended that she would suffer religious persecution if forced to return to Indonesia. The court did not reach petitioner's argument that the statutory time bar under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), does not preclude her application because the court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether she qualifies for an exception to the statutory time bar; the court rejected petitioner's remaining arguments because substantial evidence supported the BIA's determinations that her claims for asylum and withholding of removal cannot proceed because she failed to show that the Indonesian government was unwilling or unable to protect her; and CAT relief is unavailable to petitioner because she failed to show that, upon removal, she would likely endure torture by or with the acquiescence of the Indonesian government. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Mulyani v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought review of the BIA's order denying his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court concluded that Chen v. Holder is materially distinguishable from the petition here; on the merits, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner's submissions did not establish changed country conditions in China related to the enforcement of the one-child policy; and the BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence did not support a finding that China's sterilization policies would be applied to petitioner. Further, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner's evidence was not sufficient to discredit the findings in the 2007 Profile. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of his various applications for relief from deportation. The court granted the petition because of erroneous inadmissibility rulings, which would preclude petitioner from obtaining adjustment of status. Petitioner contended that the BIA erred in affirming the Second IJ's Decision's determination that he is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) for having made willful misrepresentations to procure an immigration benefit; the willful misrepresentation ruling was predicated on the Initial IJ Decision's credibility ruling; the IJ thereby utilized an erroneous legal standard in rendering the willful misrepresentation ruling; and applying the proper legal principles, the willful misrepresentation ruling is not supported by substantial evidence. View "Yang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law