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

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

Petitioner, a citizen of Sudan, sought review of the BIA's order of removal based on his conviction of two crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner was convicted under state law in 2010 for sexual battery and in 2011 for failing to register as a sex offender. The court did not defer to the BIA's decision in Matter of Tobar-Lobo because the BIA erroneously based its conclusion on the registration statute's purpose and not the nature of a conviction under the statute. The court concluded that, because petitioner's failure to register conviction was not a crime involving moral turpitude, the BIA erred as a matter of law in relying on that conviction as a basis to order petitioner's removal under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA's decision, remanding with instructions. View "Mohamed v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States on a K-2 visa as the minor child of his mother, but he turned 21 before he applied for an adjust of status to lawful conditional permanent resident. The IJ denied the application because petitioner did not qualify as a minor child under 8 U.S.C. 1255(d) and the BIA affirmed. The court found the BIA's determination of "minor child" status in Matter of Le well-reasoned and concluded that the BIA's analysis embraces the existing statutory and regulatory framework, reaching a result consistent with that framework. The BIA's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act - that a K-2 visa holder seeking adjustment of status must be under 21 at the time of admission - is therefore a permissible construction and is owed Chevron deference. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Regis v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Guatemalan national residing in the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for "special rule" cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b. The court concluded that petitioner did bear the burden of proving that he entered the United States free from official restraint; but he met that burden by relying on a border patrol agent's written report, which, the BIA expressly found, constituted the only credible and reliable evidence in the record that showed that the agent first saw petitioner at milepost nine, seventeen miles beyond the border; and, applying the principle in United States v. Hicks and numerous other cases, the court concluded that a party may rely on its opponent's evidence to make its own case. The Attorney General offered no reason why this principle does not apply in the immigration context and the court saw none; petitioner came under restraint as soon as the agent spotted him at milepost nine; the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation for departing with its own precedent; and every circuit to consider the issue has concluded that an alien first observed by a government agent miles beyond the border has entered free from official restraint - regardless of whether the party bearing the burden of proof has offered evidence of the circumstances of the alien's entry. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA to consider petitioner's application for NACARA relief in light of the proper legal standard. View "De Leon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum and withholding of removal because petitioner was not a member of a cognizable social group and, alternatively, because petitioner failed to establish a nexus between a social group and the death threats he received from MS-13. The court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings, concluding that petitioner demonstrated a cognizable family-based social group because of his kinship ties to his cousin and uncle, both of whom MS-13 murdered on account of their membership in a rival gang. Further, the BIA's nexus analysis failed to build a rational bridge between the record and the agency's legal conclusion. View "Cordova v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought discretionary relief from removal by way of a special rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA), 8 U.S.C. 1231 (b)(3)(i). Determining that petitioner's challenge was timely and that the court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 1252, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in concluding that the persecutor bar rendered him ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal where petitioner oversaw the investigation and capture of twenty to fifty civilians and guerrillas, and where petitioner most likely understood that the individuals investigated or arrested would be tortured or killed. The court rejected petitioner's remaining contentions and denied the petition for review. View "Quitanilla v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law