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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal entered by the BIA. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's determinations, affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner did not provide credible testimony that he entered the United States by car in 2004, and that petitioner was removable because he failed to prove he had been inspected and admitted as he claimed. The I-213 provided strong evidence that petitioner entered the United States afoot without inspection or admission. The IJ and BIA also articulated specific reasons to discredit petitioner's testimony based on discrepancies and contradictions. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Diaz-Perez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that petitioner's application for asylum was time-barred. The IJ denied withholding of removal or relief under the CAT because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she was a member of any Christian church or had converted to Christianity and therefore could not demonstrate that she would be persecuted or tortured in China based on her religion. The court concluded that, given the suspicious timing of petitioner's alleged conversion to Christianity and her lack of evidence proving that she was a member of the St. Louis Chinese Baptist Church, minor translation errors relating to Baptist religious practices or the Bible or the harassment of petitioner's Christian friends in China would not undermine the IJ's decision. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Yang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Bahamas, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's third-degree assault conviction in Minnesota constituted an aggravated felony. As an aggravated felon, petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). Having held that 8 U.S.C. 1182(h) was susceptible to multiple interpretations, the court deferred to the BIA's reasonable construction that section 1182(h) relief was unavailable for any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony after acquiring lawful permanent resident status, without regard to the manner in which such status was acquired. Finally, the court rejected petitioner's equal protection challenge to the BIA's construction of section 1182(h) where disagreements among the courts of appeal, or between an agency and one or more of the courts of appeal, would not by itself create an equal protection violation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Roberts v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's order dismissing his request for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that petitioner has not presented any evidence indicating that persons who identify gang members to police suffered greater crime than other members of the population who resisted gang violence. Therefore, petitioner's attempt to define a cognizable social group on this basis failed for lack of both particularity and visibility. Petitioner's proffered political status also failed; nothing in the record suggested that MS-13 targeted petitioner for political reasons; and therefore, the BIA's legal determinations were correct and substantial evidence supported its decision to deny withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A). Finally, substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision to deny relief under the CAT where the record did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured with the acquiescence of a public official. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Somoza Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on the IJ's finding of numerous discrepancies including petitioner's evasiveness and non-responsive explanations, and lack of corroborating evidence. Further, the BIA's decision that petitioner was not eligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence. Because the court upheld the agency's adverse credibility finding, petitioner could not prevail on his challenges to the IJ and BIA. Petitioner's asylum and withholding claims likewise failed, as they rested on his discredited testimony. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "An v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and national of Nigeria, petitioned for review of the the BIA's order affirming the denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Determining that it had jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, the court concluded that the IJ did not commit procedural error in excluding the testimony of petitioner's son and daughter where the testimony was cumulative and unnecessary. The court also concluded that the court need not consider whether the IJ erred in not qualifying more of petitioner's expert's testimony because petitioner was unable to show prejudice. Finally, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny petitioner relief based on her prior sham marriage. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Zeah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife sought review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner's first argument on appeal regarding the BIA's failure to determine his nationality because it had been waived; the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his status as a Palestinian refugee, or in the alternative, his Palestinian nationality, was supported by substantial evidence; the court rejected petitioner's argument that he was entitled to asylum because, as a stateless person, no government would accept him; the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) required a stateless person to show the same well-founded fear of persecution as an individual with a nationality; the decision to deny asylum was supported by substantial evidence and the evidence in the administrative record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder would be forced to conclude otherwise; because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily could not meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal; and, because petitioner relied on the same evidence to support his claim of protection under the CAT, he failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured in any of the countries designated for removal. The court rejected petitioner's due process arguments because they directly mirror his substantive issues. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agha, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a former special forces member of the El Salvador military, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him withholding of removal. The court concluded that the IJ did not deprive petitioner of a fundamentally fair hearing where the IJ provided him an opportunity to examine the documents at issue and respond to them. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to show that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that he would be persecuted in El Salvador where, among other things, petitioner and his family were not harmed based on his former military membership. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Constanza-Martinez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Jordanian citizen, appealed the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's request for adjustment of status. Petitioner contended that the unpublished BIA decision in his case was not entitled to Chevron deference. The court need not address whether Chevron deference was required because the BIA decision could be affirmed under Skidmore v. Swift & Co. The court concluded that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to adjustment of status was a persuasive interpretation of section 245(i) and was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 8 C.F.R. 245.10. Under the deference afforded by Skidmore and Auer v. Robbins, the court affirmed the judgment of the BIA and denied the petition for review. View "Mansour v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that while in China, government family-planning officials forced her to abort her second pregnancy under China's one-child policy. The court held that the IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The IJ engaged in impermissible speculation and improperly relied on a minor inconsistency. As such, the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner did not establish past persecution. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zhang, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law