Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
20-70158
|
Hernandez v. Garland
Petitioners granted special rule cancellation of removal under Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act Section 203 are barred from pursuing cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(a). |
Immigration |
|
C. Reiss | Jun. 28, 2022 |
21-70093
|
Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals erred by failing to assess petitioner's aggregate risk of being tortured where petitioner posited two alternative theories of why he would be tortured if removed. |
Immigration |
|
M. Friedland | Jun. 27, 2022 |
17-72389
|
Greenwood v. Garland
The Board of Immigration Appeals may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen a removal order if that earlier finding factually undermines petitioner's new argument. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Jun. 17, 2022 |
21-35023
|
Martinez v. Clark
Determining whether a detained noncitizen is a danger to the community is a fact-intensive "discretionary judgment" that cannot be reviewed by a district court. |
Immigration |
|
P. Bumatay | Jun. 16, 2022 |
17-71367
|
Marquez-Reyes v. Garland
The "encouraged" component of the alien smuggling statute is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment. |
Immigration |
|
E. Miller | Jun. 15, 2022 |
19-896
|
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1231(a)(6), the government is not required to offer detained noncitizens bond hearings after six months of detention. |
Immigration |
|
S. Sotomayor | Jun. 13, 2022 |
20-322
|
Garland v. Gonzalez
District courts exceeded jurisdiction in awarding injunctive relief to noncitizens because the Immigration and Nationality Act deprived them of jurisdiction to enjoin the operation of certain provisions of the act. |
Immigration |
|
S. Alito | Jun. 13, 2022 |
19-73028
|
Flores Molina v. Garland
Record evidence compelled the conclusion that asylum seeker's past experiences rose to the level of persecution because he was repeatedly forced to flee from his home in the face of death threats. |
Immigration |
|
R. Paez | Jun. 13, 2022 |
20-73583
|
Mendoza-Garcia v. Garland
Oregon first-degree burglary of a dwelling is a categorical match to generic burglary. |
Immigration |
|
J. Choe-Groves | Jun. 10, 2022 |
17-70867
|
Vasquez-Borjas v. Garland
Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his California counterfeiting conviction was a categorical match for the federal crime of forgery and therefore was a crime of moral turpitude. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Jun. 6, 2022 |
20-72231
|
Olea-Serefina v. Garland
Noncitizen's prior conviction for corporal injury upon a child was a crime-of-violence aggravated felony that made her ineligible for cancellation of removal. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | May 20, 2022 |
20-73166
|
Fon v. Garland
The harm asylum seeker suffered and evidence of the country's political and societal turmoil compelled a finding of past persecution. |
Immigration |
|
S. Graber | May 19, 2022 |
20-979
|
Patel v. Garland
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts determined by immigration judge as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 and Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). |
Immigration |
|
A. Barrett | May 17, 2022 |
20-70078
|
Udo v. Garland
Plaintiff's petition for review of his Convention Against Torture claim was granted since the agency failed to give reasoned consideration to persuasive evidence of his persecution in Nigeria for homosexuality. |
Immigration |
|
M. McKeown | May 5, 2022 |
20-50228
|
U.S. v. Hernandez-Garcia
Marine Corps did not violate the Posse Comitatus Act by surveilling defendant north of the California-Mexico border because military assistance to Border Patrol was authorized by the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | May 5, 2022 |
16-72752
|
Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland
Petitioner did not show ineffective assistance of counsel to toll the deadline for his motion to reopen his removal proceedings since he retained his attorneys after the deadline had passed. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Apr. 27, 2022 |
20-73398
|
Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland
Although the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled on the merits of a motion to reopen, the petition for review was denied because the Board did not have jurisdiction in the first place. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Apr. 27, 2022 |
20-71514
|
Amended Opinion: Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland
The possibility that petitioner could relocate and would not likely be subjected to torture was sufficient to deny relief under the Convention Against Torture, regardless of the reasonableness of relocating. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Apr. 22, 2022 |
19-35526
|
Martinez-Rodriguez v. Giles
Mexican citizens provided sufficient evidence that dairy farm, which recruited them in Mexico under TN Visa program for professional-level work, actually hired them as nonprofessional, general laborers. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | Apr. 19, 2022 |
13-71406
|
Valdez Amador v. Garland
Because the modified categorical approach no longer applied, the court remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine if consensual intercourse obtained through fraud falls under the generic federal offense. |
Immigration |
|
J. Zouhary | Mar. 10, 2022 |
19-70386
|
B.R. v. Garland
Immigration judges have authority to allow the Department of Homeland Security to cure improper service of a Notice to Appear without requiring termination of proceedings. |
Immigration |
|
C. Bea | Feb. 24, 2022 |
19-72039
|
Ortiz Narez v. Garland
A non-citizen was removable because voluntary manslaughter under California law is a crime involving moral turpitude. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Feb. 17, 2022 |
16-72926
|
Amended Opinion: Tomczyk v. Garland
For purposes of reinstatement of a prior removal order, an individual's inadmissible status renders that individual's reentry illegal regardless of the manner of reentry. |
Immigration |
|
C. Callahan | Feb. 14, 2022 |
20-72672
|
Ruiz-Colmenarez v. Garland
An immigration judge is not required to grant petitioners the presumption of absolute credibility or the benefit of every doubt. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Feb. 10, 2022 |
20-71514
|
Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Garland
The possibility that petitioner could relocate and would not likely be subjected to torture was sufficient to deny relief under the Convention Against Torture, regardless of the reasonableness of relocating. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Feb. 10, 2022 |
20-70050
|
Singh v. Garland
A noncitizen's removal order was subject to rescission because his Notice to Appear did not provide the date and time of his hearing. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gould | Feb. 7, 2022 |
20-30181
|
U.S. v. Castellanos-Avalos
Where defendant could not satisfy deprivation-of-judicial-review requirement given that defendant sought judicial review and received it, the court did not need to address 'Palomar-Santiago' case law. |
Immigration |
|
M. Smith | Jan. 19, 2022 |
19-73312
|
Amended Opinion: Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of petitioner's proposed particular social group of 'female nurses' on ground that nursing is not immutable characteristic was unreasonable. |
Immigration |
|
W. Fletcher | Jan. 18, 2022 |
19-73193
|
Jimenez-Sandoval v. Garland
Notice of deportation proceedings served on a 17-year-old minor was adequate notice absent any reason to believe service on an adult would have been more effective at securing an appearance. |
Immigration |
|
J. Rawlinson | Jan. 14, 2022 |
19-71693
|
Togonon v. Garland
A noncitizen was not removable because his conviction under California statute was not a categorical match to its federal counterpart. |
Immigration |
|
P. Watford | Jan. 11, 2022 |