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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Moldova, petitioned for review of a final order of removal of the BIA, affirming the decision of the IJ to deny her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She also argued that the BIA violated her equal protection rights in denying her petition to terminate removal proceedings under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), 18 U.S.C. 3607(a). The court concluded that petitioner's equal protection challenge to the FFOA failed and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. Therefore, the court dismissed in part and denied in party the petition for review. View "Brikova v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and cancellation of removal. Because the basis of the BIA's rejection of petitioner's past persecution claim was unclear, the court remanded to the BIA for clarification. Remand was also necessary because if the BIA was upholding the IJ's adoption of a blanket rule that past persecution to family members could never be the basis for a past persecution claim, this was an incorrect statement of law. Alternatively, if the BIA based its decision on a finding that petitioner's claims of past persecution based on past harms to his family were not on account of a protected ground, the BIA engaged in improper factfinding. The court also remanded to the BIA to conduct proper factual review on the issue of whether petitioner was eligible for cancellation of removal. View "Flores v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, his wife, and his children petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming the IJ's denial of their application for asylum and rejecting their due process claim. The court affirmed the denial of the petition for asylum where the court could not say that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution if petitioner and his family were to return to Kenya. The court also denied the due process claim where petitioner had no protected interest at stake and, in any event, petitioner has not shown that he suffered the kind of fundamental error required to support a due process challenge. View "Wanyama, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed past and a well-founded fear of future persecution as a result of his resistance to China's coercive family planning policies. The court concluded that substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole supported the finding that there were serious reasons to believe petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before arriving in the United States and was therefore ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or withholding of removal under the CAT. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims and denied the petition for review and counsel's motion to withdraw. View "Zheng v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner did not file a timely petition in the court to review the BIA's initial order in his case, the court's jurisdiction was limited to review of the BIA's order denying the petition to reopen the asylum proceedings. Because the letters at issue did not undermine the BIA's initial determination that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based upon an enumerated ground for relief, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in deciding that petitioner failed to satisfy his heavy evidentiary burden to reopen the removal proceedings. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claim and affirmed the judgment. View "Lopez-Mendez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner Mathias belongs to the Fom ethnic group and his extended family practices the Vodun religion (colloquially known as "voodoo"). Petitioners contended that the BIA erred by analyzing Mathias's fear of persecution based on the potential female genital mutilation (FGM) of his daughter as a derivative claim, instead of as a claim of direct persecution of Mathias. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the decisions of the IJ and BIA were supported by substantial evidence and that this was not a case where the BIA might reach a different conclusion after a more complete evaluation of the record. The IJ and BIA noted, among other things, that the daughter did not face a well-founded fear of persecution in the form of FGM. View "Hounmenou, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner John Waldron, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, had his permanent resident status in the United States terminated because of his conviction for second degree assault. Petitioner sought an adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. An immigration judge (IJ) concluded that Petitioner was eligible for relief, granting both Petitioner's adjust of status and the waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed and ordered Petitioner removed to the United Kingdom. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the BIA erred by failing to review the IJ's factual findings for clear error. Remanded. View "Waldron v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Israel, entered the United States in September 2005. On September 21, 2006, the government commenced removal proceedings against Petitioner. In response, Petitioner submitted an application for asylum, claiming he feared persecution if he were to return to Israel. Because Petitioner submitted this application after removal proceedings were commenced, his application was also considered a request for withholding of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) found against Petitioner. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA did not err in (1) accepting the IJ's conclusion that Petitioner did not meet his burden of proof for establishing his claim of asylum and withholding of removal; and (2) denying Petitioner's motion to reopen and remand. View "Salman v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born in Czechoslovakia and was admitted as a permanent resident in the United States. After Defendant was convicted of racketeering, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal and applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. An immigration judge found Petitioner eligible for both of these forms of relief, denied Petitioner a waiver of inadmissibility, and granted Petitioner cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held Petitioner to be ineligible for both a cancellation of removal and a waiver of inadmissibility. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the BIA did not err in finding (1) Petitioner's racketeering conviction was an aggravated felony and that he was therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal; and (2) Petitioner was ineligible for a waiver because he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of his admission, and therefore, his aggravated felony disqualified him from seeking a waiver of inadmissibility. View " Spacek v. Holder" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted Defendant for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and for an immigration violation. Defendant conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 108 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless traffic stop, arguing that deputies lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, and the district court's admission of the evidence resulting from the traffic stop was proper. View "United States v. Zamora-Lopez" on Justia Law