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

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the IJ's and BIA's decisions denying relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that the Somali government will acquiesce in his torture by Al-Shabaab, a terrorist organization.The court held that substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's findings that the Somali government would not acquiesce in any torture of petitioner by Al-Shabaab. In this case, the record does not show that the Somali government has willfully turned a blind eye to Al-Shabaab's activities. Rather, the Somali government and its allies have battled Al-Shabaab, retaken territory from it, and worked to maintain order. Furthermore, the Somali government is using its amnesty program as part of its fight against Al-Shabaab as a tool to encourage defections. Finally, petitioner's argument that the Somali government and Al-Shabaab act in concert to torture people is wholly without record support. The court stated that the fact that the Somali government has not successfully ended the threat posed by Al-Shabaab violence is insufficient to establish that the torture would be with the consent or acquiescence of a government official. View "Moallin v. Barr" on Justia Law

A noncitizen who enters this country without inspection or admission, but who later receives Temporary Protected Status (TPS), may adjust her status to Lawful Permanent Resident because a TPS recipient is deemed inspected and admitted for purposes of 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).The Eighth Circuit held that section 1254a(f)(4) provides that TPS recipients "shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant" for purposes of adjusting their status under section 1255. The court explained that those in nonimmigrant status are necessarily inspected and admitted. By operation of section 1254a(f)(4), then, TPS recipients are considered "inspected and admitted" under section 1255(a), regardless of whether they entered the United States without inspection. Therefore, USCIS's contrary interpretation conflicts with the plain meaning of the INA and is therefore unlawful. View "Velasquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal is what effect, if any, a guilty plea has on later denaturalization proceedings. In this case, defendant had pleaded guilty to violating and conspiring to violate Iraqi sanctions and to misusing his organization's tax exempt status and omitting relevant, material information from tax forms. Eight years after pleading guilty and eighteen years after first becoming a citizen, the government commenced proceedings to denaturalize defendant. The district court agreed with the government that defendant's failure to disclose his criminal activities called for denaturalization.The Eighth Circuit held that all three judicial estoppel factors favored applying the doctrine: first, the court stated that defendant's current position is clearly inconsistent with the one from his criminal proceeding; second, the district court had to accept the plea's factual basis, including defendant's statements during the plea colloquy; and third, defendant would derive an unfair advantage if he were allowed to change his position now. Therefore, the court cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to consider defendant's lack-of-knowledge defense. Finally, the court rejecting defendant's defense of laches because the doctrine of laches does not apply to the United States when it is acting in its sovereign capacity. View "United States v. Hamed" on Justia Law

Avitso, a citizen of Togo, entered the U.S. as a student in 2004 and married a U.S. citizen. In 2011, USCIS denied a Petition for Alien Relative filed by Avitso’s wife and an application for adjustment of status filed by Avitso, concluding they had entered into a fraudulent marriage to procure immigration benefits, which made Avitso removable, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), 1227(a)(1)(A). Notice of removal proceedings was mailed to Avitso at the address where USCIS investigators had been told he resided. In 2012, DHS mailed notice to a different address. The immigration court also mailed notice; it was returned, marked “moved left no address.” Avitso failed to appear. The IJ entered a removal order.In 2019, remarried and represented by new counsel, Avitso moved to reopen, alleging that he “did not personally receive" notice but a copy was forwarded to him by his then-attorney. The motion cited ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion, concluding Avitso failed to meet case law requirements to establish ineffective assistance and even if those requirements were satisfied, the outcome would not have been different. The BIA dismissed Avitso’s appeal. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. Avitso’s motion to reopen included no evidence that he notified former counsel of his ineffective assistance claims, provided her an opportunity to respond, or filed a complaint with disciplinary authorities. The BIA enforces those requirements to discourage baseless allegations and deter meritless claims. View "Avitso v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied the petitions for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for deferral and the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration case. The court rejected petitioner's due process claim that the agency failed to consider all relevant evidence. The court also held that the BIA did not err in determining that petitioner had failed to show he was more likely than not to be tortured based on his Christian faith if removed to Bangladesh. In this case, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that petitioner failed to show that the Bangladeshi government acquiesces in torture, and substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that petitioner's evidence of forcible land evictions does not demonstrate the government's acquiescence in torture.The court also held that the Board did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen where plaintiff offers nothing, beyond conclusory statements, to support his claim that the newly-offered evidence was not available at the time of his hearing in 2018. Furthermore, the new evidence was unlikely to alter the IJ's decision. View "Ahmed v. Barr" on Justia Law

In Al-Saadoon I, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of petitioners' (husband and wife) petitions for naturalization because husband engaged in unlawful employment and thus the couple never lawfully adjusted to permanent resident status. Petitioners then filed a Supplement A to Form I-485 with USCIS to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents nunc pro tunc.The court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioners' requests for nunc pro tunc adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of an adjustment of status application. The court explained that, because petitioners failed to adjust their status to lawful permanent residents, they cannot meet the requirements for naturalization. To the extent that petitioners attempt to relitigate the determination that they were unlawfully admitted to permanent resident status in 2002, they are barred by res judicata. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed petitioner's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program claim. Finally, petitioners' Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) claim fails because they did not assert a claim for relief under RFRA in their petition. View "Al-Saadoon v. Barr" on Justia Law

After the district court granted petitioner's application for naturalization, petitioner then moved for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The district court denied the motion. The government concedes that petitioner is entitled to costs in the amount he requests because he is the prevailing party and, unlike for attorney's fees, there is no "substantially justified" requirement for costs under the EAJA.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's order with modifications that petitioner is awarded costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the government's position was substantially justified and did not err in denying the requested attorneys' fees under the EAJA. In this case, the government's position that petitioner lacked good moral character because he had given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining immigration or naturalization benefits was substantially justified. Finally, the court denied petitioner's motion to supplement the record. View "Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging defendant with illegal reentry in the United States. The court held that an alien may not collaterally attack the underlying deportation order unless: (1) the alien exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the order; (2) the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of an opportunity for judicial review; and (3) entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.In this case, defendant failed to meet his burden on any of the elements. Furthermore, even if defendant could collaterally attack the deportation order under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105, 2115 (2018), his attack fails. Therefore, the immigration court had jurisdiction over defendant's deportation proceedings and the district court did not err in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Aquilar Escobar" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that she was persecuted because of her family membership.The court held that petitioner's financial resources, rather than her family membership, was the central reason for the persecution; the Board did not err in concluding that petitioner's first group -- membership in the Fuentes family -- is not cognizable; petitioner failed to prove past persecution on account of her membership in two other particular social groups -- Salvadoran female heads of households and vulnerable Salvadorean females; and, having failed to establish past persecution, petitioner is not entitled to a presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. Consequently, petitioner cannot meet the higher standard of proof for withholding of removal. View "Rodriguez Fuentes v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order dismissing petitioner's appeal from an IJ's decision denying deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). As a preliminary matter, the court held that it need not determine whether the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard of review, because petitioner did not raise the aggregate risk argument before the BIA.The court held that the BIA correctly found that res judicata did not bar consideration of past torture petitioner suffered in the 1980s and any error by the IJ in concluding otherwise was harmless both because the IJ nevertheless considered that evidence and because the BIA also considered the evidence and applied the correct legal standard. The court also held that substantial evidence in the record supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner's argument that he would likely be tortured upon return to Iraq was based on a chain of assumptions and speculation. View "Alzawed v. Barr" on Justia Law