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

Petitioner sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) order denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In its order denying reconsideration, the Board affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) finding that Petitioner, a Salvadoran national whose entire family had fled to the United States, had not established a nexus between his family membership and the threat of persecution as required for his asylum and withholding of removal claims. The Board also affirmed the IJ’s finding that Petitioner had not shown acquiescence by public officials as required for his CAT claim.   The Fourth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the petition for review, vacated in part the Board’s order denying reconsideration, and remanded for further proceedings. The court explained that the Board abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard in its nexus analysis for the Petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court also held with regard to these two claims that the Board abused its discretion by arbitrarily disregarding Petitioner’s testimony about the threat of future persecution. However, the court rejected Petitioner’s argument that the Board abused its discretion with regard to his CAT claim. The Board provided specific reasons for finding the Petitioner’s testimony insufficient to meet his burden of proof and appropriately evaluated the evidence under the futility exception. View "Marvin A.G. v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, sought a review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his application for cancellation of removal. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the petition for review. The court held that it lacks jurisdiction because Petitioner did not timely file his petition within 30 days of the Board’s final order of removal. The court explained that the availability of voluntary departure may have remained “up in the air,” but voluntary departure does not affect Petitioner’s removability – “it affects only the manner of his exit.” Further, the court wrote that its decision in Li to dismiss without prejudice a petition that was timely filed, however, has no bearing on the court's authority to act on a petition that was not. View "Williams Rodriguez Salgado v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for a review of the denial of his claim to protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge found that Petitioner, a bisexual man and former gang member, had not shown the requisite likelihood that he would be tortured if returned to his home country of Jamaica. Petitioner now challenged that finding on appeal, arguing that it does not properly account for his aggregate risk of torture as required by the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker, 915 F.3d 968 (4th Cir. 2019).   The Fourth Circuit disagreed and denied the petition. The court explained that it is abundantly clear that both the IJ and the BIA applied the aggregation rule of Rodriguez-Arias, considering not only the individual risk of torture from each actor identified by Petitioner but also the cumulative probability of torture. The IJ recognized from the start, in laying out the applicable law, that “the risks of torture from all sources must be aggregated when determining whether an individual is more likely than not to be tortured in a particular country.”   Further, the court reasoned that Petitioner identified no record evidence suggesting that he would be singled out for torture as, say, a “bisexual former gang member” and thus subjected to a risk of torture greater than the “sum of its parts” – greater, that is, than the risk captured by aggregating the likelihood of torture based on sexual orientation with the risk of torture based on former gang membership. View "O' Neil Kerr v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant entered the United Stated without authorization in 2004. He was then convicted of malicious wounding in Virginia and was deported back to El Salvador. Defendant later re-entered the United States before being convicted of another crime in 2020. He was indicted for illegal entry. moved to dismiss that indictment, arguing that the five year statute of limitations on his prosecution had run and that his crime of malicious wounding was not a deportable offense. The district court rejected Defendant's claims.On appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's collateral attack of his removal order, finding that Defendant entered the United States without authorization, committed a deportable offense, re-entered again illegally, and then committed another crime. The court explained that Defendant's "case falls right at the heart of what Congress sought to criminalize and the executive branch seeks to stop with the illegal reentry statute of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326." View "US v. Omar Alas" on Justia Law

Elizur International Inc. (“Elizur”) filed a Form I-140 Immigration Petition for Alien Worker on behalf of its employee, seeking to permanently employ their employee in the United States as a multinational executive or manager under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied Elizur’s petition. Rather than file an administrative appeal, Elizur and the employee sued in federal court and lost.   The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that the agency did not commit a clear error in judgment. The record contains ample support for the agency’s conclusion that Elizur failed to provide the necessary level of detail as to the employee's duties to permit the agency to conclude that the employee functioned in a managerial or executive capacity while employed at Triple-R. Further, the generic and vague statements, many of which the agency cited in its decision, fall well short of what’s required to demonstrate that the employee primarily performed managerial or executive functions. View "Chuncheng Ren v. USCIS" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deported Petitioner, a permanent resident of the United States, since he was six years old, because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) deemed his altercation with the police an aggravated felony. Because of that designation, Petitioner was not allowed back into the United States. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the type of offense Petitioner committed no longer qualified as an aggravated felony. Learning of that decision in 2019, Petitioner moved the BIA to reconsider its original removal order and to equitably toll the usual thirty-day deadline for filing such motions in view of the legal change. The BIA declined. It did not dispute that Petitioner is entitled to be readmitted into the country, but it rejected Petitioner’s request to toll the limitations period, believing him insufficiently diligent in discovering his rights.   The Fourth Circuit held that it has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Board’s diligence determination, remanding to the BIA to consider the second prong of the equitable-tolling inquiry—whether the change in the law constituted an extraordinary circumstance—as well as the merits of Petitioner’s claim. The court explained that because the BIA determined Petitioner was not diligent, it did not consider whether Johnson and Dimaya presented an extraordinary circumstance that would warrant equitable tolling. View "Damien Williams v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deported Petitioner Petitioner, a permanent resident of the United States since he was six years old, because the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or the Board) deemed his altercation with the police an aggravated felony. Because of that designation, Petitioner was not allowed back into the United States, not even to visit. He would spend the next eleven years in Jamaica, working mostly for room and board, his U.S.-citizen mother, siblings, girlfriend, and children affording only a handful of trips to see him. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the type of offense Petitioner committed no longer qualified as an aggravated felony. Learning of that decision in 2019, Petitioner moved the BIA to reconsider its original removal order and to equitably toll the usual thirty-day deadline for filing such motions in view of the legal change. The BIA declined. It did not dispute that Petitioner is entitled to be readmitted into the country, but it rejected Petitioner’s request to toll the limitations period, believing him insufficiently diligent in discovering his rights.   The Fourth Circuit held that it has  have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision and that it must review it de novo. And the Court vacated the Board’s diligence determination, remanding to the BIA to consider the second prong of the equitable-tolling inquiry—whether the change in the law constituted an extraordinary circumstance—as well as the merits of Petitioner’s claim. View "Damien Williams v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

At issue is whether the Commonwealth of Virginia would recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens when neither spouse was domiciled in that nation at the time of the divorce. The question arises from Petitioner’s marriage to a woman after the woman and another man — both Ghanaian citizens — divorced pursuant to Ghanaian customary law. At the time of the divorce, the woman and man were lawful permanent residents of the United States, and neither was present or domiciled in Ghana. Based on his marriage to the woman, Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident of the United States. But when Petitioner applied to become a naturalized citizen, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) determined that he and the woman were not validly married. USCIS reasoned that under controlling Virginia law, the Commonwealth would not recognize a divorce granted by a nation where neither spouse was domiciled at the time of the divorce. Petitioner sought a review of the decision in the district court, which granted summary judgment to USCIS. Petitioner then brought this appeal.   The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Petitioner’s naturalization application. The court concluded as a matter of comity, Virginia would recognize this otherwise valid divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens, regardless of the citizens’ domicile at the time. The court explained it rejected only USCIS’s argument that pursuant to present Virginia law, the Commonwealth would refuse to recognize a divorce granted by a foreign nation to its own citizens simply because neither was domiciled in the foreign nation at the time of the divorce. View "Michael Adjei v. Alejandro Mayorkas" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a review of the denial of his petition for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude: identity theft under Virginia law, which explicitly includes “intent to defraud” as an element. Va. Code Ann. Section 18.2-186.3(A)(2). On appeal, Petitioner contends the statute could be—and in his case, was—applied to crimes that don’t involve moral turpitude.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court concluded that subsection (A)(2) of the Virginia identity-theft statute qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), and that the Board didn’t abuse its discretion in deciding Petitioner’s case in a single-member opinion. The court explained that it found no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision to assign this case to a single-member panel. The issue was not “complex, novel, or unusual”: It was squarely resolved by the Board’s precedent for crimes with “intent to defraud” as an element. The Board considered (and was unpersuaded) by the argument that Petitioner’s offense was “more akin to deception than fraud,” and the court agreed with its conclusion. Nor is there evidence that the relatively narrow issue of whether subsection (A)(2) of the Virginia statute involved moral turpitude is a “recurring” question before the Board. View "Jose Salazar v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned or review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final removal order under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252. The Board held that Petitioner, as the recipient of a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, couldn’t adjust status to that of a conditional permanent resident without an affidavit of support from her former husband, who originally petitioned for her K-1 visa.   The Fourth Circuit denied the petition, finding that the Board’s decision to be reasonable under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The court held that the Board didn’t act arbitrarily or capriciously by hewing to a regulatory provision that applies on its face, even if another (facially inapplicable) provision might have better protected Petitioner’s reliance interests.   Petitioner’s petition also seeks review of the Board’s refusal to reopen her removal proceedings so she could introduce a document entitled “Questions and Answers: USCIS— American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Meeting,” dated October 9, 2012. Petitioner suggested that this document supported her argument that subsection (f)(1) (and not (f)(2)) should apply to K-1 beneficiaries’ adjustment applications, such that a petitioner couldn’t withdraw a Form I-864 once the K-1 beneficiary has entered the United States. The document doesn’t render the Board’s decision unreasonable. At oral argument, both parties agreed that the document is ambiguous as to whether it truly reflected USCIS’s position in 2012. But even if it did, the Board’s later precedential decision in Petitioner’s case binds USCIS employees. View "Sothon Song v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law