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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was ineligible for adjustment of status. The court concluded that the IJ and the BIA did not err in concluding that defendant was inadmissible because substantial evidence supported the finding that he has admitted to committing acts which constitute the essential elements of a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846, a law of the United States related to controlled substances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from an IJ's order denying their motion to suppress evidence and terminate deportation proceedings. Petitioners argued that they alleged sufficient facts before the IJ to demonstrate that the entry and search of their home was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation such that the statements and passports they provided during the search should be suppressed. The court held that, even if petitioners have alleged a Fourth Amendment violation, they did not allege a prima facie case of egregiousness to warrant exclusion of evidence in the deportation context. Further, there was no Fifth Amendment violation for the failure to conduct a hearing. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Lopez-Fernandez, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Indonesia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning and concluded that the harassment and intimidation petitioner experienced because of his religion and ethnicity did not rise to the level of persecution because they lacked severity or they were isolated acts of criminal conduct or lawlessness. Further, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear or that he faced a clear probability of future persecution warranting relief if returned to Indonesia. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Further, petitioner failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Supangat v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his family, Kenyan citizens, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying them asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Mungiki defectors constituted a "particular social group" and that the record compelled the conclusion that the Kenyan government was unwilling or unable to control the Mungiki. Therefore, the BIA erred in denying petitioner's claims on the merits. Further, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to remand to allow petitioner's sister to testify in person because her testimony, if credited, was likely to change the IJ's credibility findings and thus change the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Gathungu, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the BIA's order denying his motion to terminate deportation proceedings. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that petitioner's conviction of witness tampering in violation of Nebraska Statute 28-919(1)(c), (d), constituted an aggravated felony because it was an offense relating to the obstruction of justice under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S). View "Armenta-Lagunas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Cafe and its owner and manager for willfully violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that plaintiffs, as aliens without work authorization, lacked standing to sue. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the FLSA did not allow employers to exploit any employee's immigration status or to profit from hiring unauthorized aliens in violation of federal law. View "Lucas, et al. v. Jerusalem Cafe, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his claim for asylum based on the untimeliness of his application. The court concluded that the BIA did not commit legal error because it did not require petitioner to show both "changed circumstances" and "extraordinary circumstances" to excuse his untimeliness. Instead, the BIA independently analyzed both exceptions and agreed with the IJ that petitioner met neither of them. Further, the issue of whether a "material" change in circumstances affected petitioner's eligibility for asylum was not a reviewable question of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition because it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the application for asylum was untimely. View "Goromou v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Tunisia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order finding him removable because his July 2010 conviction for violating a Kansas drug paraphernalia statute was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA correctly concluded that a conviction for violating the Kansas paraphernalia statute was, categorically, related to a controlled substance within the meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and use of the modified categorical approach as urged by petitioner was unnecessary; the court rejected petitioner's premise that Matter of Paulus was controlling agency authority the BIA arbitrarily ignored; and it was not error to admit and rely on evidence outside the record of conviction where the BIA concluded that the personal use exception did not apply. View "Mellouli v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Senegalese citizen, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the denial of his petition for adjustment of status. The government initiated removal proceedings against petitioner after he failed to comply with the conditions of his non-immigrant student visa. The IJ denied petitioner's request for relief, finding that he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because he provided material support to a terrorism organization while in Senegal. The IJ further held that even if petitioner was eligible for relief, the IJ would deny relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA affirmed and petitioner sought review of that decision. The court denied the petition for review because it did not have jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment. View "Diallo v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his petition to defer removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and dismissal of his appeal. To the extent petitioner challenged the legal standard used by the BIA, the court rejected that challenge on the merits. Petitioner's remaining challenges, including his factual dispute with the BIA's application of the "willful blindness" standard, were foreclosed by the criminal alien bar in 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) and were beyond the court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Gallimore v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law