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

Petitioner Yonis Ahmed Ali, a native and citizen of Somalia, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's applications, basing its denial of relief on its conclusion on an adverse credibility finding. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA order, holding that the IJ's adverse credibility determination, affirmed by the BIA, was supported by the record, and thus Petitioner could not prevail on his challenges to the decisions of the IJ and BIA. View "Ali v. Holder" on Justia Law

The government commenced removal proceedings against Defendant, who was born in Guatemala. Defendant submitted an application for asylum or withholding of removal, basing his asylum application on his membership in a particular social group, which he defined as "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy." The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that Defendant did not meet his burden of showing past persecution or a reasonable probability of future persecution, that he did not show the government of Guatemala was unable or unwilling to control alleged persecutors, and that there was little evidence that his social group would be perceived as a group by society or subject to a higher incident of crime than the population. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in finding that the group "Guatemalans returning from the United States who are perceived as wealthy" was not a particular social group within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. View "Matul-Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and re-entry as a previously removed alien. The district court imposed a 420-month sentence. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for improper venue and his sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) venue was proper in the Northern District of Iowa because authorities learned of Defendant's deportation in the Northern District; (2) the district court did not err procedurally by applying an importation enhancement and refusing to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 420-month sentence, as the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to affirm the IJ's denial of her application for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse of a United States citizen. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that petitioner had not met the extreme hardship element required for cancellation. Consequently, the court did not reach her other arguments. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Canada, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal because petitioner's previous convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude. Petitioner argued that his crime, for providing a false name to a peace officer, was not "inherently base, vile, or depraved" and therefore the BIA should have "looked behind his conviction." The court agreed and concluded that the IJ and the BIA departed from the methodology mandated In Matter of Silva-Trevino in not requiring the Government to meet its burden. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceeding based upon new evidence. The court held that the BIA was within its discretion in determining that the new evidence of changed circumstances - the Individual Education Plan (IEP) evidencing his son's developmental delay - did not warrant reopening where petitioner merely disagreed with the weight the BIA ascribed the new evidence; the BIA's mislabeling of his son's developmental delays alone did not show that the BIA improperly distorted the substance of the child's IEP; and where the IEP contained no information about how petitioner's absence would adversely affect his son's developmental delay, much less how his absence could cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" nor does the IEP show how diminished educational opportunities in Mexico were "exceptional and extremely unusual" to a child with a developmental delay. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Romania, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA determining that his state conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia in a motor vehicle rendered him ineligible for waiver of inadmissibility under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 212h, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA's interpretation of section 1182(h)'s waiver for a "single offense of simple possession of... marijuana" as not including the possession of drug paraphernalia in a vehicle was not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Petitioner sought remand to the BIA for consideration of issues he raised before the BIA that were not explicitly addressed in the BIA's disposition of his immigration appeal. The court held that the IJ and BIA did not err in their assessment that it was reasonable to expect further corroborative evidence from petitioner to support his asylum application. The court remanded, however, because it was not apparent from the BIA's order whether the BIA addressed petitioner's claim that deficiencies in the IJ hearing transcript masked his IJ hearing testimony that corroborative testimony was unavailable.

After illegally reentering the United States for the seventh time, defendant was again charged with and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C. 202 and 557. On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a downward variance in light of United States v. Jimenez-Perez where the lack of fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. Further, defendant did not argue at sentencing for a downward variance on this ground and the district court committed no plain error in failing to comment sua sponte on the issue.

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry after removal and subsequently appealed his 77-month prison sentence as substantively unreasonable. Given defendant's extensive criminal history and weak claim of cultural assimilation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. The court also held that lack of a fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 and the district court committed no plain error on that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.