Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for withholding of removal. The record reflected that the members of petitioner's family were killed or kidnapped due to their failure to cooperate with drug traffickers or were the victims of criminal activity. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between his membership in a particular social group and the harm he feared in Mexico. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's determination that petitioner did not establish either past persecution or that he would more likely than not be persecuted based on his membership in a particular social group if returned to Mexico. The court denied the petition for review. View "Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Antigua, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. The court concluded that a conviction under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(2) for the possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver was not, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Petitioner and others convicted under this statute could still be able to meet their burden to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal, and should be given a chance to shoulder that burden. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacating and remanding for further proceedings. View "Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant and his wife were indicted on charges of marriage fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), and making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement to DHS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to dismiss his marriage fraud indictment on statute of limitations grounds. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss and reversed the judgment because the plain meaning of section 1325(c) dictated that the crime of marriage fraud was complete on the date of marriage and, as a result, the government's indictment was time-barred. View "United States v. Roja" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to deny his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ and BIA concluded that petitioner was subject to removal and that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he had failed to prove that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Mexico. The court denied the petition for relief, concluding that the BIA committed no error of law; rejected defendant's argument that his removal to Mexico would violate his right to due process; and directed the court to seal records of petitioner's guilty plea and those portions of the record that contained information about the identity and whereabouts of petitioner's family. View "Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Colombian national, petitioned for review of a final order of the BIA affirming the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA concluded that petitioner provided material support to a designated terrorist organization, the AUC, in the form of six annual payments of $300 in war taxes. Alternatively, the BIA found that petitioner's claims for relief failed on the merits. The court concluded that the BIA's factual finding that petitioner paid $1,800 to a designated terrorist organization was supported by substantial evidence; the fact that the AUC was demobilized in 2006 did not render the material support bar inapplicable; it was not relevant whether petitioner knew, or should have known, that the AUC was deemed a terrorist organization; the BIA's legal determinations that the funds provided by petitioner constituted "material support" within the meaning of the statutory bar and that the statute did not contain a duress exception were permissible constructions of the INA to which the court must defer; and the BIA reasonably concluded that the statutory bar did not exempt material support provided to a terrorist organization under duress. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Alturo, et al v. US Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioners Ortiz and Malpica petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's order of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A), on the grounds that they were inadmissible at the time of their adjustment of status. The court found that the IJ erred as a matter of law in finding petitioners inadmissible pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) because that section only applied to applicants for admission and not to immigrants like petitioners who sought post-entry adjustment of status while already in the United States. Because willful misrepresentation was an essential element of both fraud and willful misrepresentation and because the IJ found that Ortiz did not make any willful misrepresentation, Ortiz was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Under Matter of Arrabally, Malpica's exit pursuant to a grant of advance parole did not qualify as a "departure" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) and Malpica was, thus, not inadmissible under this section. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Ortiz-Bouchet, et al v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Brazil, sought a continuance of his deportation proceedings to await the availability of an immigrant visa based on his approved I-140 petition. The IJ denied petitioner's motion for a continuance and the BIA affirmed the IJ's judgment. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. The court agreed with petitioner's argument that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi and Matter of Rajah. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacated the decision of the BIA, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ferreira v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged certain rules issued by the Department of Labor governing the employment of temporary, non-agricultural foreign workers, asserting that the Department had no authority to issue these rules. The district court agreed and granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the rules during the pendency of the action. The court found that the district court's legal conclusion regarding plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits was without error, and its finding of fact supporting its conclusion that none of the other factors militates against the issuance of the preliminary injunction was without clear error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bayou Lawn & Landscape Svcs, et al v. Pineros Y Campesinos Unido, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was detained for eight months by immigration officials and filed a complaint for money damages against a federal official afterwards. The parties initially agreed that plaintiff was a citizen of the United States, and the district court determined that it had jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), barred complaints only by aliens. The district court later dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. While plaintiff's appeal of that decision was pending, the United States issued an official notice of cancellation of plaintiff's citizenship on the grounds that it was obtained by fraud and illegally, and the parties then disagreed about whether plaintiff was a citizen. The court vacated the order that dismissed the complaint and remanded for the district court to determine whether plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and, if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint. View "Belleri v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

The BIA found that petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found petitioner removable and denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal because his underlying offense - pointing a firearm at another person, in violation of S.C. Code 16-23-410 - was a particularly serious crime of violence that disqualified him from those forms of relief. The BIA also denied his claim for CAT relief based on factual determinations that he would not be tortured upon return to his native Jamaica. After thorough review of petitioner's arguments on appeal, the court concluded that none of petitioner's claims justified the grant of his petition. View "Cole v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law