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

Petitioner, a citizen of the Philippines, filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's final order of removal, concluding that petitioner was barred from seeking adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(d). At issue was the relationship between 8 U.S.C. 1255(d) and (i) where section 1255 prescribed the terms upon which various classes of aliens could adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident ("LPR"). The court held that the provisions in subsection 1255(d) barred petitioner as a K-1 visa holder from adjusting her status on any basis other than her marriage to the U.S. citizen who petitioned on her behalf and that these provisions were consistent with the carefully crafted scheme that Congress created for the purpose of avoiding marriage fraud. The court also held that petitioner's due process rights were not violated where she was not entitled to a further hearing after she conceded removability and was ineligible for adjustment of status. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.

Petitioner, a native of Guatemala, appealed from a final order of removal by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") seeking review of the BIA's decision to reverse itself by granting the government's motion for reconsideration and vacating the Board's prior decision that had allowed petitioner to reopen his case. At issue was the BIA's decision to rescind its sua sponte grant of petitioner's untimely motion to reopen on the basis of the departure bar. The court remanded and held that the BIA should determine whether petitioner's motion to reopen was timely filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229(c)(7)(C) under the doctrine of equitable tolling, given his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and if so, rule on the motion, whether on the basis of the departure or other grounds.

Appellant appealed a conviction of one count of making a materially false statement and one count of making a materially false statement in an immigration matter. At issue was whether appellant's rights were violated under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause and whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him. The court held that appellant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated where he did not have the opportunity to be confronted by witnesses against him when a Bosnian judgment of conviction was admitted as testimonial evidence to demonstrate that appellant had lied when he said that he had not killed anyone. The court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that appellant falsely denied that he had killed anyone before coming to the United States.