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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that she was persecuted by family-planning officials in China for being pregnant out of wedlock. The BIA and IJ concluded that petitioner lacked credibility because the substance of her story did not conform to State Department accounts of life in China. In the absence of any findings as to petitioner's demeanor, the consistency of her statements, or some other individualized reason for questioning her credibility, the court could not say that the IJ's adverse-credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons. Accordingly, although the court dismissed that portion of petitioner's claim relating to CAT relief for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court granted the petition as it related to the BIA's adverse-credibility determination, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The court concluded that it was unclear whether the BIA's current interpretation of section 212(h) - that an alien seeking section 212(h) relief who had not filed an adjustment of status application must remain "outside our borders while applying for relief" - overruled Matter of Sanchez or if the BIA's current interpretation essentially functioned as a continuation of its precedent under Sanchez, in which case the BIA would treat an alien satisfying the conditions of Sanchez as if the alien were "outside our borders while applying for relief." Therefore, the court remanded to the BIA for the purpose of allowing it to consider petitioner's case in light of the court's intervening decision in Poveda v. U.S. Att'y Gen. and to apply Sanchez to petitioner's case if the BIA finds it applicable. On remand, the BIA should also reconsider petitioner's case in light of the Supreme Court's holding in Judulang v. Holder. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lawal v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's order of removal, as well as the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reconsider. Petitioner was charged with removability for committing an "aggravated felony" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) when he pled guilty to violating Georgia Code 16-8-14, a statute that criminalized shoplifting. The court concluded that a section 16-8-14 conviction did not categorically qualify as an aggravated felony; petitioner's record of conviction did not establish that he committed an aggravated felony; and the court granted the petition and reversed the BIA's rulings. View "Ramos v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order that he be deported because he was an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner conceded that his 2010 conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude. At issue was whether his 2003 Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence, was also a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the Florida statute required intentional violence against an officer, it criminalized conduct that exhibited a deliberate disregard for the law, which the court considered to be a violation of the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed to society. Therefore, the court concluded that the Florida conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and that the BIA properly determined that petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). View "Cano v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his Bivens action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleged that three US ICE agents violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they arrested and detained him in connection with the initiation of removal proceedings against him. Because all of plaintiff's claims challenged actions taken to commence removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) stripped the federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal. View "Gupta v. McGahey, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Chinese national, sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum. Petitioner alleged that he had suffered past religious persecution on the basis of a 2002 incident, during which the police busted up a Christian church service in his father's home and arrested his father, who was the leader of the church, petitioner, and seven or eight other worshipers. At issue on appeal was whether petitioner's account, if true, compelled a finding of past persecution. In this case, the Chinese authorities subjected petitioner, over the course of seven days, to a wide variety of harms in a concerted effort to repress his religious exercise. Those disturbing circumstances convinced the court that, if petitioner's account was to be credited, the Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner on account of his religion. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's determination that the conduct petitioner alleged did not amount to persecution. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shi v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the USCIS's denial of her Form I-360 self-petition for adjustment to permanent resident status. USCIS denied the petition on the grounds that it was contrary to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. Petitioner claimed that USCIS's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Because petitioner's husband did not satisfy the fifth requirement under the plain reading of section 1 of the CAA, the alien must be admissible to the United States for permanent residence, petitioner could not self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994's, Pub. L. No. 103-322, tit. IV, 108 Stat. 1902, amendments to the CAA. Further, the USCIS's distinction between non-Cuban aliens on the basis of a Cuban spouse's adjustment status did not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Toro v. Sec. for the Dept. of Homeland Security, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum and ordering him removed. At issue was whether the BIA erred when it overturned the IJ's factual findings that petitioner would likely be forcibly sterilized upon returning to China. The court concluded that the BIA committed legal error by making its own de novo factual findings and therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for the BIA to review the IJ's decision under the proper clear error standard. View "Zhu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contended that the pattern and practice delineated in Section 223.11(m)(2) of the Immigration Service Adjudicator's Field Manual violated the plain and unambiguous language of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 (CAA), 8 U.S.C. 1255. After reviewing the statutory language, the court concluded that the Immigration Service's pattern and practice of limiting the date of lawful permanent residence based on the date of marriage was contrary to the unambiguous language of the CAA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Hernandez v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in gang violence in Honduras since he filed his previous motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law