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

Petitioners Martinez and Garcia sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal of the IJ's order of removal after the IJ denied their motions to suppress evidence uncovered by a warrantless entry. In the order, the IJ conflated Martinez's testimony with that of his son. Both the IJ and the BIA found the officers' warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances solely based on the son's yell to Garcia "not to open the door" because immigration officers were outside. Assuming petitioners' accounts of the ICE officers' conduct were true, any Fourth Amendment violations they suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in a civil removal proceeding. Although both the IJ and BIA clearly erred in their treatment of Martinez's and his son's testimonies, the error did not necessitate remand because the error was not prejudicial. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's burden-shifting argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252 because they failed to raise this issue at the administrative level. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Carcamo, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a refugee immigrant, sued defendants, seeking a judgment declaring that the USCIS acted unlawfully by withholding adjudication on his application without periodically reviewing it, an injunction ordering USCIS to adjudicate his application within 30 days, and other relief. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the delay in adjudicating plaintiff's application was neither unlawful nor unreasonable as a matter of law. After intervening action by the Secretary, USCIS approved plaintiff's application for adjustment to permanent resident status. Because the case is now moot, the court dismissed the appeal, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint. View "Ayyoubi v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Peru, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims. Petitioner feared persecution if he returned to Peru on account of his political opinion. Petitioner asserted that the BIA erred by affirming the IJ's determination that he failed to show that the Peruvian authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him from the Shining Path. Considering the police efforts, the substantial evidence in the record did not indicate that the government condoned the actions of the Shining Path or demonstrated a complete helplessness to protect petitioner. Thus, petitioner failed to establish a harm amounting to persecution. For the same reason, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. Because petitioner failed to satisfy the lower burden of proof required for asylum, it followed that he failed to satisfy the higher, clear probability standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gutierrez-Vidal v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a final order of the BIA affirming the IJ's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner asserted that he was targeted for persecution because of his membership in a particular social group consisting of family members and local business owners. The court concluded that petitioner had not shown that he had a well-founded fear of future persecution. The BIA did not abuse its discretion because it gave a rational explanation for its decision, did not distort the record, followed its established policies, relied on no impermissible factors, and committed no legal error. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Quinteros v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of Guinea, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ denied petitioner's applications based on an adverse credibility finding. The court concluded that the IJ considered all of the evidence presented and its decision was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative information from the record as a whole. The inconsistencies and discrepancies noted by the IJ in this case were not minor or peripheral. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Fofana v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a 68-year-old citizen of Ethiopia, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that substantial evidence on the administrative record supported the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution. The court held, however, that the BIA did not adequately consider one aspect of petitioner's distinct claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution that was supported by credible testimony and by other record evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further consideration. View "Tegegn v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Cambodian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner requested asylum based upon her fear of political persecution in Cambodia where she belonged to the Sam Rainsy Party, an opposition party. The court held that petitioner failed to establish past and future persecution; the court rejected petitioner's argument that her confidentiality was breached when the Notice of Agreement and her husband's death certificate were shown to a Phnom Penh municipal official, raising an inference that she was seeking asylum; and petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the IJ's consideration of certain evidence submitted by the government. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "La v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Kenya, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA specifically incorporated the IJ's adequate findings and specifically foreclosed petitioner's additional arguments from affecting the outcome, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's decision; the BIA did not err in rejecting petitioner's evidentiary contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the admissibility of medical records; and the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "R.K.N. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, sought review of the BIA's order affirming an IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. The court was presented with a complete absence of evidence as to the individuals and motives behind the deaths and disappearance of petitioner's children. Without more, the court could not conclude that petitioner and his wife and son were not the casualties of general civil unrest, crime, or societal violence. Therefore, the court affirmed the BIA's holding that the incidents at issue did not constitute past persecution on account of a protected ground. The court also held that the BIA's conclusion that petitioner did not qualify as a refugee and was ineligible for asylum was supported by substantial evidence; petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal; and petitioner's claim of humanitarian asylum was waived. View "Garcia-Colindres, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, arguing that his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Because petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, he was not entitled to relief. View "Abraham v. United States" on Justia Law