Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
19-72290
|
Bogle v. Garland
Petitioner was deportable even though his guilty plea for possession of more than one ounce of marijuana could technically have included conduct that fell under the 30-gram personal-use exception. |
Immigration |
|
M. Bennett | Dec. 30, 2021 |
16-73325
|
Ramirez-Medina v. Garland
Convictions for multiple offenses disqualified Petitioner from eligibility for cancellation of removal proceedings even though the cancellation statute's exception referred to a singular offense. |
Immigration |
|
A. Hurwitz | Dec. 23, 2021 |
18-70393
|
Walcott v. Garland
A noncitizen was not removable because her conviction for offering to transport less than two pounds of marijuana was not a crime involving moral turpitude. |
Immigration |
|
A. Tashima | Dec. 23, 2021 |
21-70064
|
Rodriguez-Jimenez v. Garland
The Immigration Judge and Bureau of Immigration Appeals are only required to provide a thorough and reasoned analysis of its decision and need not present an exposition on every issue. |
Immigration |
|
L. VanDyke | Dec. 22, 2021 |
16-72926
|
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 | Dec. 15, 2021 |
15-71553
|
Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland
A fundamentally fair hearing was denied when the government made no effort to make underlying witnesses to a probation report available for cross-examination. |
Immigration |
|
C. Bea | Dec. 15, 2021 |
B311089
|
In re Scarlett V.
Where evidence clearly supports a finding of Special Immigrant Juvenile status, courts must, at a minimum, consider the evidence and issue a determination. |
Immigration |
|
J. Segal | Dec. 10, 2021 |
17-73412
|
Kumar v. Garland
The bulk of the adverse credibility findings were unsupported by the record because several of the alleged inconsistencies were not inconsistent at all. |
Immigration |
|
M. McKeown | Dec. 1, 2021 |
20-30187
|
U.S. v. De La Mora-Cobian
An alien requesting asylum during expedited removal proceedings must exhaust the asylum claim before being allowed to collaterally attack the removal order in a later prosecution for illegal reentry. |
Immigration |
|
R. Tallman | Nov. 30, 2021 |
D077894
|
Modification: People v. Alatorre
Petitioner was reasonably diligent because, although the change in law had become effective two years prior, he promptly retained counsel after learning of the change in law. |
Immigration |
|
W. Dato | Nov. 24, 2021 |
18-72548
|
Nababan v. Garland
The Board of Immigration Appeals must, when properly considering all factors, take into account Indonesia's changed circumstances towards evangelical Christians specifically, as opposed to Christians in general. |
Immigration |
|
S. Gleason | Nov. 24, 2021 |
19-72007
|
Goulart v. Garland
The Board of Immigration Appeals denied petitioner's claim for equitable tolling because petitioner failed to diligently pursue his rights during the time between his removal and the change in law. |
Immigration |
|
R. Paez | Nov. 19, 2021 |
D077894
|
Modification: People v. Alatorre
Petitioner was reasonably diligent because, although the change in law had become effective two years prior, he promptly retained counsel after learning of the change in law. |
Immigration |
|
W. Dato | Nov. 18, 2021 |