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

Martinez was born in Guatemala to a Mexican mother, who left him in Guatemala when she returned to Mexico. She eventually married an American and moved to the U.S. As a teenager, Martinez was a member of a church youth group in Guatemala. He contends that area gangs committed violent acts and threatened violence against individuals who refused to sell drugs. Martinez entered the U.S. in 1999, at age 17, to join his mother. Martinez was issued a Notice to Appear, missed his second immigration hearing, and was ordered removed, in absentia, in 2000. In 2010, Martinez moved to reopen his removal proceedings. The motion was granted after appeal to the BIA. In 2012, the IJ granted Martinez voluntary departure and alternatively ordered removal. Martinez moved to reopen the removal proceedings, after the 90-day deadline (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)). The IJ found that Martinez failed to show changed country conditions after his hearing to cure the untimeliness. The BIA affirmed and denied reconsideration. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Martinez failed to “specify the errors of law or fact” in the BIA’s decision affirming denial of his motion to reopen because of his failure to establish changed country conditions, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(C). View "Martinez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Galarza entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1986. In 1999 he was granted voluntary departure. Galarza re-entered, unlawfully, in 2000. In 2010, he was arrested and removal proceedings were commenced. Galarza asserts that ICE agents promised to help him stay in the U.S. in exchange for information on Sanchez, Galarza's nephew. Galarza asserts he provided that information, which resulted in Sanchez’s arrest and removal. Galarza sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, asserting that he was a member of social groups "consisting of people who have provided information to [ICE] to enable that organization to remove individuals residing illegally in the [United States]," and "witnesses for ICE." Galarza claimed that Sanchez had beaten his brother and killed his nephew and had threatened to kill him. He argued that the removal of Sanchez was a changed or extraordinary circumstance that excused his untimely filing. The IJ found the asylum application time-barred, that Galarza's claimed social groups lacked social visibility and particularity, that Galarza failed to establish the standard of asylum, and that he had not established that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government or its agents upon his return. The BIA and Eighth Circuit rejected petitions for review. View "Martinez-Galarza v. Holder" on Justia Law

Chilel, born in 1986, in Guatemala, was threatened and stabbed in the arm when he refused to join a gang in 2008. He informed the police, but he did not seek medical treatment. Chilel waited several months before entering the U.S. in 2009. In 2010, Chilel was taken into Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency custody, charged with providing false information and having forged identification. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Chilel testified about his altercation with the gang, conceding that he did not know the result of the police investigation. He testified that he had received a letter from his sister describing a feud near his hometown. His mother told him “everything was bad” and that he should stay in the United States. The IJ denied the application for asylum as time-barred and not satisfying a statutory exception to the one-year limitation and denied withholding of removal and CAT relief on the merits. The BIA affirmed: Chilel failed to demonstrate changed circumstances under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D); failed to establish his membership in a distinct social group for purposes of withholding of removal; and did not establish the Guatemalan government harmed him for purposes of the CAT. The Eighth Circuit denied review. View "Chilel v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2002, Mogeni, a Kenyan citizen, entered the U.S. as a non-immigrant visitor. In 2003, Mogeni married Byers, a U.S. citizen. Byers filed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative on Mogeni's behalf. The Department of Homeland Security denied the petition, finding that the marriage was a sham. Neither Byers nor Mogeni appealed. Byers and Mogeni divorced in 2004. In 2005, three months after his divorce from Byers, Mogeni married Gullie, another U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 petition on Mogeni's behalf. Because the DHS previously found Mogeni had entered into a sham marriage to obtain an immigration benefit, the DHS denied the second I-130 petition. Mogeni appealed. Gatere, Mogeni's daughter from a previous marriage in Kenya, also filed an I-130 petition on Mogeni's behalf. In December 2006, the DHS initiated removal proceedings under, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). Mogeni appeared with the assistance of counsel and requested a continuance. From 2007 to 2012, an immigration judge granted Mogeni 12 continuances. The IJ rejected a thirteenth requested and ordered Mogeni to be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals and Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Mogeni v. Holder" on Justia Law

Kanagu, a citizen of Kenya, arrived in the U.S. in 2009, without a valid visa or other entry document. Weeks later, DHS initiated removal, charging Kanagu as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). Kanagu applied for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he feared persecution based on his membership in a “particular social group,” which he described as a group of vigilantes formed to counter the activities of the Mungiki sect. Kanagu, who had intermittently lived in the U.S. since 1998, said he had sent small amounts of money to this vigilante group between 2004 and 2006. The Mungiki accosted Kanagu in Kenya in July 2009, approximately three years after he had last sent money to the vigilantes, demanding money and telling him they knew he could pay because he had money in the U.S. They did not mention his membership in any group. The Mungiki let Kanagu go after he gave them $700 in cash. The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief. The Eighth Circuit denied review, holding that Kanagu did not establish persecution based on membership in a particular social group. View "Kanagu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Guerrero, a Honduras native, entered the U.S. illegally in 1990. He was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) after claiming to be a citizen of El Salvador. When Salvadorans' TPS status was due to expire, Guerrero applied for asylum, submitting a false Salvadoran birth certificate and alleging he faced potential retribution from the Salvadoran government because he and his father had been members of a guerilla group. Guerrero submitted work authorization requests misrepresenting his national origin. An asylum officer, believing Guerrero was Salvadoran, informed him of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), which limited removals of Salvadorans. Guerrero did not correct the officer nor apply for NACARA benefits. Guerrero missed an asylum interview in 2008. DHS initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Guerrero admitted his Honduran citizenship and sought cancellation of removal and asylum. The IJ denied relief, citing Guerrero's history of lying in immigration matters, driving while intoxicated convictions, and an arrest for domestic assault, and stating that Guerrero did not establish that his U.S.-citizen sons "would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if [Guerrero] had to leave," or a well-reasoned fear of persecution based on his membership in a social group. The BIA and Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Guerrero-Tejado v. Holder" on Justia Law

Chen, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1997. She applied in 2008 for a "U" visa, which gives temporary legal status to crime victims. That application was denied. While the application was pending, Chen filed an affirmative application for asylum based on her fear that she would be persecuted if she returned to China because she is a Christian. Her application was referred to the immigration court because Chen had filed it more than one year after entering and had not shown any exception to the deadline. Chen conceded removability and sought relief in the form of asylum, withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, and cancellation of removal, testifying that her mother had been arrested twice for her involvement in a Christian church. Chen initially testified that her mother's first arrest occurred in 1990, but later stated it was 1997. Chen was unable to name or describe the branch of Christianity to which her mother belonged. Chen's testimony about when and how she came to the U.S. conflicted with statements in her applications. The Immigration Judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Chen's appeal. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Ali is a native of Somalia and member of the Tumal clan, which he describes as a "minority clan" that is "small and weak" compared to other Somali clans. In 2009, Ali arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border and applied for admission to the U.S. Ali provided a sworn statement to a DHS officer, testifying that members of the Hawiye clan persecuted him in 2003 and 2009. After a "credible fear interview," DHS commenced removal proceedings, alleging that Ali had willfully misrepresented material facts to procure entry and was removable under sections 212(a)(6)(C)(i) and 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ali filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge denied Ali's applications. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review. Ali's inconsistent testimony and lack of corroborating evidence provided the requisite "significant evidence" to support the IJ's adverse credibility determination. View "Ali v. Holder" on Justia Law

Lucas was arrested on suspicion that he had reentered the U.S. illegally. As part of the investigation, the arresting officer requested Lucas’s alien file (A-file) which contained a signed warrant of deportation. A signed warrant indicates that the attesting witness observed the deportee leaving the country. The district court denied Lucas’s pretrial motion to suppress the warrant. At trial, the government introduced the contents of Lucas’s A-file into evidence, including the warrant of deportation which indicated that he had been deported in 2005, under an order of removal. The court rejected an argument that the admission of the warrant violated Lucas’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. The jury found Lucas guilty of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). The court sentenced him to time served with no supervised release to follow. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to admission of the warrant. View "United States v. Lorenzo-Lucas" on Justia Law

Rodriguez is a citizen of Mexico. He obtained an Iowa identification card using the name Ramon Rodriguez (the name of his brother, also a Mexican citizen) and presented: a Missouri identification card, a social security card, a falsified U.S. birth certificate, and an employee identification card. Although the original Iowa application did not require him to disclose his citizenship, the completed application that he signed indicated that he was a U.S. citizen. He used that card and the same falsified U.S. birth certificate to apply for a U.S. passport. The passport application that he signed stated that he was a “citizen or non-citizen national of the United States.” Rodriguez was convicted of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, 18 U.S.C. 911, and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Ayala" on Justia Law