Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
21-70909
|
Khalulyan v. Garland
Alien was eligible for removal due to his involvement in a fraudulent criminal conspiracy that resulted in total loss greater than $10,000 regardless of the actual amount of loss he caused. |
Immigration |
|
D. Bress | Mar. 31, 2023 |
19-72903
|
Alfred v. Garland
Alien convicted of robbery was eligible for removal for committing an aggravated felony because state statute for accomplice liability was categorical match with the federal generic definition of accomplice liability. |
Immigration |
|
J. Bybee | Mar. 31, 2023 |
19-70964
|
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Application of incorrect standard of review to Immigration Judge's determination--that there was insufficient nexus between immigrant's membership in protected group and harm faced in his home country--required remand. |
Immigration |
|
M. Bennett | Mar. 20, 2023 |
17-71012
|
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals properly denied Nicaraguan citizen's application for asylum because he presented no evidence brother's gang involvement or father's political activism would lead to future persecution. |
Immigration |
|
R. Bennett | Mar. 16, 2023 |
20-71956
|
Lopez Hernandez v. Garland
Immigrant appellee seeking withholding of removal could not have judgment altered in his favor because he failed to file a cross-appeal. |
Immigration |
|
E. Miller | Feb. 17, 2023 |
21-70624
|
Antonio v. Garland
Failure to analyze an asylum applicant's correct social group when considering an application based on past persecution was error requiring remand. |
Immigration |
|
M. Bennett | Jan. 27, 2023 |
20-72806
|
Amended Opinion: Singh v. Garland
Substantial evidence did not support the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the harm petitioner suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gilman | Jan. 13, 2023 |
20-50039
|
U.S. v. Amintobia
Naturalization seeker's conviction for lying under oath was warranted where government presented sufficient evidence that naturalization application contained material misrepresentations. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | Jan. 12, 2023 |
20-73486
|
Perez-Portillo v. Garland
In absentia order was rescinded where Board of Immigration Appeals relied solely on doctrine of constructive notice without considering alien's evidence supporting her claim that she did not receive the notice. |
Immigration |
|
C. Callahan | Jan. 3, 2023 |
19-70961
|
Salguero Sosa v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals erred by failing to conduct cumulative-effect review when assessing asylum seeker's evidence of past persecution. |
Immigration |
|
M. Smith | Dec. 19, 2022 |
21-16062
|
Amended Opinion: Matias Rauda v. Jennings
8 U.S.C. 1252(g) bars judicial review of claims challenging government's execution of removal order. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Dec. 14, 2022 |
13-73719
|
Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland
Adopting Board of Immigration Appeal's interpretation of statutory meaning of child abuse for categorical approach was appropriate where all normal tools of statutory interpretation failed to produce an unambiguous meaning. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Dec. 9, 2022 |
19-72063
|
Amended Opinion: Perez-Camacho v. Garland
The Bureau of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in concluding that equitable tolling was not available when alien failed to explain why he waited 21 years to seek to reopen his case. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Dec. 5, 2022 |
20-71042
|
Amended Opinion: Bravo-Bravo v. Garland
The Board of Immigration appeals lacked any jurisdiction to reopen a reinstated prior order of removal when alien had illegally reentered the country. |
Immigration |
|
S. Ikuta | Dec. 5, 2022 |
20-36052
|
Galvez v. Jaddou
Permanent injunction permitting tolling of deadlines for special immigrant juvenile petitioners must be tailored to meet statutory requirements. |
Immigration |
|
C. Bea | Nov. 4, 2022 |
20-72138
|
Hernandez v. Garland
An immigration judge may use a probable-cause declaration in Form I-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, to determine whether a crime was serious to bar an applicant's request for asylum. |
Immigration |
|
E. Miller | Nov. 1, 2022 |
20-71582
|
Mendoza-Linares v. Garland
Ninth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear petition challenging expedited removal proceedings because of comprehensive jurisdictional limits prohibiting review of expedited proceedings implemented by statute. |
Immigration |
|
D. Collins | Oct. 25, 2022 |
20-71529
|
Lopez v. Garland
The Immigration Judge improperly denied immigrant's application for relief under the Convention Against Torture by disregarding relevant evidence and making unsupported conclusions about the alleged police violence. |
Immigration |
|
M. Berzon | Oct. 24, 2022 |
16-70543
|
Dong v. Garland
Where the Immigration Judge's and Board of Immigration Appeals's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and well-grounded reasoning, their adverse credibility determinations must be kept intact. |
Immigration |
|
K. Cardone | Oct. 20, 2022 |
21-55365
|
Munoz v. U.S. Dept. of State
The government violated the notice requirements of due process when it did not provide evidence supporting a consular official's decision to deny a visa application until three years after the denial. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lipez | Oct. 6, 2022 |
20-71923
|
De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland
Assuming statutory jurisdiction arguendo, petitioner's claim for cancellation of removal had no merit because his only claim for unusual hardship was based on economic detriment to his children. |
Immigration |
|
A. Hurwitz | Sep. 28, 2022 |
20-71703
|
Lara-Garcia v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals erred as a matter of law in denying sua sponte reopening because petitioner would have been eligible for relief under Federal First Offender Act had his offense been prosecuted as a federal crime. |
Immigration |
|
S. Graber | Sep. 27, 2022 |
21-15117
|
U.S. v. Rodriguez
Defendant may be able to show that lawyer's incorrect advice that avoiding immigration removal could be possible was ineffective assistance of counsel depending on importance of immigration consequences to defendant. |
Immigration |
|
C. Bea | Sep. 26, 2022 |
21-70093
|
Amended Opinion: 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 | Sep. 26, 2022 |
21-70493
|
Amended Opinion: Hernandez v. Garland
Non-citizen was ineligible for cancellation of removal because his grant of temporary protected status did not constitute an admission to the United States for purposes of obtaining lawful permanent resident status. |
Immigration |
|
D. Forrest | Sep. 15, 2022 |
20-72806
|
Singh v. Garland
Substantial evidence did not support the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the harm petitioner suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. |
Immigration |
|
R. Gilman | Sep. 15, 2022 |
20-16142
|
Hernandez Avilez v. Garland
Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under United States Code Section 1226(c) are not eligible for release on bond during the judicial phase of the proceedings. |
Immigration |
|
M. Murguia | Sep. 9, 2022 |
21-70112
|
Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland
INTERPOL Red Notice lacking any specific factual allegations was insufficient to establish probable cause that asylum applicant had committed a serious non-political crime before arriving in the United States. |
Immigration |
|
R. Clifton | Sep. 1, 2022 |
19-73107
|
Singh v. Garland
Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding petitioner's motion to reopen was foreclosed by prior adverse credibility determination because petitioner submitted new evidence independent of prior adverse credibility finding. |
Immigration |
|
K. Lee | Aug. 31, 2022 |
16-73915
|
Romero-Millan v. Garland
Petitioner's Arizona conviction for use of or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia was a conviction for a controlled substance offense that properly supported the order of removal against him. |
Immigration |
|
R. Clifton | Aug. 30, 2022 |