Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Abrahim Fofana, a Liberian national, attempted to enter the United States with fraudulent documents in 2001. After disclosing his fundraising activities for the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO) and claiming fear of persecution due to his affiliation, he was granted asylum by an immigration judge. In 2002, Fofana applied to adjust his status to lawful permanent resident. In 2018, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied his application, determining he was inadmissible because he had solicited funds for ULIMO, which was classified as a Tier III terrorist organization under federal law.Fofana challenged the denial in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, arguing that USCIS’s decision was arbitrary and capricious and that collateral estoppel precluded his inadmissibility finding. The district court initially ruled in his favor on collateral estoppel grounds, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to Fofana, rejecting the government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction, and finding that Fofana was not inadmissible for engaging in terrorist activity. The court also concluded that USCIS’s determination regarding ULIMO was arbitrary and capricious and that the record did not support the finding that Fofana knew or should have known of ULIMO’s terrorist activities.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary’s decision on adjustment of status, finding that federal law precludes judicial review of both discretionary and non-discretionary determinations made by the Secretary regarding such applications. The appellate court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fofana v. Noem" on Justia Law

Aguilar-Hernandez, a citizen of Guatemala, began a relationship with Arreaga Soto at age fifteen. After the birth of their child, Jose, she experienced repeated sexual and physical abuse from Arreaga Soto, who threatened her life and verbally abused her. Despite multiple attempts to leave, she reconciled with him each time, but the abuse continued. In 2016, Aguilar-Hernandez and her son left Guatemala and were apprehended at the U.S. border. She applied for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, with her son seeking derivative relief.An Immigration Judge denied all applications, finding that Aguilar-Hernandez failed to establish a nexus between the alleged persecution and her membership in the proposed social groups. The judge concluded that the abuse stemmed from a personal relationship and not from her membership in a particular social group. The judge also found no evidence that the Guatemalan government acquiesced in torture. On administrative appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed all findings and denials.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision, applying de novo review to legal questions and substantial evidence review to factual findings. The Eighth Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s conclusion that Aguilar-Hernandez’s membership in the proposed social groups was incidental or tangential to the motive for abuse, and that she did not show persecution “on account of” such membership. The court further found that she failed to meet the higher standard required for withholding of removal and did not provide particularized evidence that she would more likely than not be tortured with government acquiescence upon return. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit denied both petitions for review. View "Aguilar-Hernandez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Iowa enacted a law making it a state crime for certain noncitizens who had previously been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed from the United States to enter or be found in Iowa. The law also required state judges to order such individuals to return to the country from which they entered and prohibited state courts from pausing prosecutions based on pending or possible federal immigration status determinations. Two noncitizens residing in Iowa, both of whom had previously been subject to federal removal orders but later lawfully reentered the United States, along with a membership-based immigrant advocacy organization, challenged the law, arguing it was preempted by federal immigration law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that the plaintiffs had standing and granted a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Iowa law was preempted by federal law under both conflict and field preemption doctrines. The district court also found that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect and that the balance of equities and public interest favored an injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had standing and were likely to succeed on the merits because every application of the Iowa law would conflict with federal immigration law by interfering with the discretion Congress grants to federal officials. The court also found that the other factors for a preliminary injunction were met. The Eighth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine the appropriate scope of the injunction in light of recent Supreme Court guidance. View "IA Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird" on Justia Law

Philip Myers, a native and citizen of Liberia, was adopted by a U.S. citizen and entered the United States as a child. He later sustained several criminal convictions, including for aggravated felonies. In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. Myers claimed derivative citizenship through his adoptive mother, who had become a naturalized U.S. citizen, and also alleged that he had been abused by her. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had previously denied his derivative citizenship application, finding insufficient evidence that he was in his adoptive mother’s legal and physical custody at the relevant time. During removal proceedings, Myers, sometimes represented by counsel and sometimes pro se, was found competent to proceed without safeguards. He applied for various forms of relief, including asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but these were denied.The Immigration Judge ordered Myers removed to Liberia. Myers appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the competency determination was flawed and that he should have been found incompetent to proceed pro se. The BIA found no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s competency finding and dismissed the appeal. Myers then moved to reopen the proceedings, citing a pending motion with USCIS regarding derivative citizenship, alleged errors in the competency determination, a new asylum claim based on his sexual orientation, and a pending T-visa application as a victim of sex trafficking. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Myers was removed to Liberia.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and found none. The court also rejected Myers’s constitutional challenge to the statutory requirements for derivative citizenship and found no genuine issue of material fact regarding his nationality claim. The petition for review was denied. View "Myers v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In October 2018, Veronica Pineda De Aquino used a false identity to apply for a U.S. passport, submitting fraudulent documents. Investigators, with the cooperation of the real identity holder, A.E., determined Pineda was a Mexican citizen who had entered the U.S. in 1999. In June 2023, a grand jury indicted Pineda for making a false statement in a passport application and using another person’s social security number. Pineda initially pled not guilty but later entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the first count in exchange for the dismissal of the second count.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas accepted Pineda’s guilty plea but deferred the decision on the plea agreement until reviewing the presentence investigation report (PSR). The PSR detailed Pineda’s difficult background and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 0 to 6 months of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSR without objection but varied upward, sentencing Pineda to 32 months of imprisonment, citing the seriousness of her offense and the need for deterrence. The court dismissed the second count as per the plea agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Pineda argued that the district court erred by not expressly accepting or rejecting the plea agreement and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The appellate court found that the district court constructively accepted the plea agreement and that any error was not plain. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pineda above the Guidelines range, considering the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. De Aquino" on Justia Law

Zackaria Dahir Mohamed, a native of Somalia, entered the United States as a child refugee in 1998. He was later convicted of several offenses, including theft and assault with a dangerous weapon. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him due to these convictions. An Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered his removal in 2018, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Mohamed then petitioned for review.The IJ initially found Mohamed removable for aggravated felony theft and crimes of violence. In 2020, the IJ ordered his removal to Somalia. Mohamed appealed to the BIA, which remanded the case to the IJ to assess Mohamed’s competency. On remand, Mohamed presented evidence of his mental health history, including a psychological evaluation by Dr. Jerry Kroll. The IJ ruled in 2021 that Mohamed was competent during the 2020 merits hearing, based on Dr. Kroll’s testimony and the IJ’s observations. The BIA dismissed Mohamed’s appeal on de novo review, leading to the current petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Mohamed argued that the BIA’s affirmation of the IJ’s competency finding was unsupported by the record. The court noted that it has jurisdiction to review final agency removal orders but not factual findings related to criminal offenses. The court found that Mohamed’s competency determination was a factual finding, which is generally affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Mohamed’s claims were barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).Even if Mohamed presented a legal or constitutional claim, the court found no fundamental procedural error or resulting prejudice. The IJ had considered all appropriate evidence, including Dr. Kroll’s testimony and Mohamed’s behavior during proceedings. The court concluded that there was no procedural error in holding a retroactive competency hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Mohamed v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Muhammad Masood, a licensed physician from Pakistan, came to the United States in 2018 on a non-immigrant visa to work as an unpaid medical researcher. In 2019, he became radicalized by Islamic extremist content and planned to join ISIS. In March 2020, he was arrested at the Minneapolis airport with plans to travel to ISIS-controlled territory. A search revealed military and medical supplies, computers, and digital storage devices containing extremist propaganda. Masood pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Masood to 216 months imprisonment, varying downward from the statutory maximum of 240 months. Masood appealed, arguing procedural errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and alleged violations of his due process rights and right to allocution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in applying the terrorism enhancement, as the evidence supported that Masood's offense was intended to promote terrorism. The court also found that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Additionally, the court determined there was no violation of Rule 32(i) or the Due Process Clause, as Masood and his counsel were given opportunities to argue and allocute before the final sentence was imposed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Masood" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of Mexico, Lilia Salinas, who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007, was convicted in North Dakota state court in 2011 for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. She received a suspended sentence of 360 days’ imprisonment. In 2021, she was convicted again in North Dakota state court for two counts of aggravated assault of a victim under 12 years of age, receiving a 10-year sentence with one year suspended. Based on these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her in 2022, charging her with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for a controlled substance violation and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse.An immigration judge (IJ) found Salinas removable under both charges, applying the categorical approach to determine that her marijuana conviction qualified as a controlled substance offense under federal law. The IJ compared the North Dakota definition of marijuana at the time of her conviction with the federal definition in effect at that time, concluding they were substantially similar. The IJ also pretermitted her application for cancellation of removal, as her 2011 conviction stopped the clock on her period of continuous residence, making her ineligible for relief.Salinas appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ should have compared the state statute to the federal definition in effect at the time of her removal proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the appropriate comparison was with the federal definition at the time of conviction and that the state and federal definitions were a categorical match.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and upheld the BIA’s decision. The court held that the proper comparison for determining removability under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) is between the state statute at the time of conviction and the federal Controlled Substances Act in effect at that time. The court also rejected Salinas’s argument that the North Dakota definition of marijuana was overbroad compared to the federal definition. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "Salinas v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Donglan Xia, a U.S. citizen, filed a Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on behalf of her adopted nephew, Tian "Tim" Xia, who was born in China and entered the U.S. on a temporary visitor visa in 2011. Tim's parents relinquished their parental rights, and Xia adopted him in 2012. Xia filed the I-130 petition in 2018 to classify Tim as an immediate relative for preferential immigration status. USCIS denied the petition, stating Xia did not prove Tim's adoption fell outside the Hague Adoption Convention, that Tim did not enter the U.S. for adoption, or that Tim had compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Xia's appeal, agreeing with USCIS that Xia failed to show Tim's adoption was outside the Hague Adoption Convention and that Tim had not established compelling ties to the U.S. before his adoption. The BIA noted Tim's activities in the U.S. but concluded they did not demonstrate habitual residence. Xia sought judicial review, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and found the BIA's decision lacked sufficient reasoning for meaningful judicial review. The court noted the BIA did not explain which specific facts and circumstances it considered or how they negated Tim's documented connections to the U.S. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings, requiring a more detailed explanation of the BIA's decision regarding Tim's habitual residence and ties to the U.S. View "Xia v. Scott" on Justia Law

Aziz El Manyary, a Moroccan citizen, entered the U.S. in 2006 on a K-1 visa and married a U.S. citizen. He applied to adjust his status but failed to attend a USCIS interview, leading to the denial of his petition. Subsequently, USCIS initiated removal proceedings, and an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him removed in absentia when he failed to appear at a hearing. Seven years later, El Manyary filed a motion to reopen the proceedings, which was denied as untimely by both the IJ and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Five years later, he filed a second motion to reopen, which the BIA also denied as untimely.The IJ denied El Manyary's first motion to reopen, citing untimeliness and lack of diligence. The BIA affirmed this decision. El Manyary's second motion to reopen was also denied by the BIA, which found it untimely and declined to toll the deadline due to lack of diligence. The BIA rejected his argument of lack of notice, noting that he had received proper notice of his hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and denied El Manyary's petition for review. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen based on untimeliness and lack of notice. The court also found that the BIA's decision not to reopen the case sua sponte was discretionary and not subject to judicial review. The petition for review was denied, and the BIA's decision was upheld. View "Manyary v. Bondi" on Justia Law