Ninth Circuit: Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

 

As there was no particular and objective basis for the Terry stop and the arrest of the foreign national was effectuated by handcuffing and placing into the patrol car prior to the contact with federal immigration authorities that gave probable cause for the arrest, S1983 suit against the officer states a claim.

As the actions of the Justice of the Police who called the officer to the courtroom upon leaning from a testifying witness that the plaintiff was in the country illegally were both a but/for cause and a proximate cause of the deprivation of 4A, the JP was a sufficiently integral participant for the purposes of a S1983 claim.

Circuit caselaw was clearly established at time, holding that lack of documentation or other admission of illegal presence was insufficient probable cause for an arrest for illegal entry.

Miguel Reynaga Hernandez v. Derrek Skinner

Sixth Circuit: Alain Cuevas-Nuno v. William Barr

 

Alien's appeal citing an exceptional situation justifying sua sponte reopening of the matter did not sufficiently exhaust a claim for a statutory reopening of the matter due to exceptional circumstances.

Alain Cuevas-Nuno v. William Barr

Ninth Circuit: Gonzalo Dominguez v. William Barr

State drug statute criminalizing manufacture and delivery is divisible, as the two are different elements, not different means.

Under modified categorical review, the statute is a valid predicates, since the state's inclusion of "conversion" in the definition of drug manufacture overlaps the federal definition of "production."

Board's adjudication took sufficient consideration of the particulars of the case.

Issue of defective notice, promptly remedies, was not jurisdictional.

Gonzalo Dominguez v. William Barr

Fifth Circuit: Kevin Santos-Alvarado v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Petitioner's explanations of inconsistencies in testimony are reasonable, but they do not compel a finding that the Immigration judge's finding of adverse credibility was one that no reasonable jurist would make.

IJ's bar on telephonic testimony didn't violate due process, as the testimony wouldn't have been dispositive, and the IJ reviewed the witness' written statement.

Kevin Santos-Alvarado v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Sixth Circuit: Andrei Skripkov v. William P. Barr

Unreasoned immigration decision in a mixed-motive case gets no deference; the context and substance of the prosecution of the petitioner make clear that it is related to the protected conduct.  The relevant question is not the persecutor's politics, but the politics that the petitioner was thought to have had.

Withholding of removal claims do not require petitioner to establish case around "one central reason."

Andrei Skripkov v. William P. Barr 

DC Circuit: Grace v. William Barr

District court had sufficient statutory jurisdiction to review policy document addressing substantive law invoked by the procedural law subject to judicial review; challenge in individual cases would prove impractical.

Policy change announced in agency adjudication not insulated from review by the bar on review of individual cases; separate jurisdiction strip statute evaded in this case, as the policy affects both the matter covered by the jurisdiction strip and other matters.

Administrative standard adopted under Chevron logic is arbitrary and capricious, as it is inherently bifurcated, and could result in different outcomes in identical situations based on which standard was used.

New choice of law policy arbitrary and capricious, not sufficiently distinguished as a change from prior practice, and the justifications advanced are not in the rulemaking itself.

Policy guidance appropriately states the rule on circularity of harm developed in agency adjudications.

Language in guidance document suggesting prospective application appropriately qualified by statements of generality, and therefore not a new rule.

Jurisdiction strip referred to the operation of the statute, not rulemaking found to be inconsistent with the statute.  (Perhaps.  This is quick work.  Don't ever rely.)

Dissent:

Jurisdiction strip statutes apply, allowing review of law and application of law to fact would undercut the purposes of the bars to review.  

Grace v. William Barr 

Second Circuit: Jack v. Barr

Conviction under state statute encompassing loaded antique firearms is not a categorical predicate for Immigration removal under federal statutory definition adopted by the agency, as that definition excludes antique firearms.

Considering the question de novo, agency erred in requiring petitioner to establish a reasonable probability that the state would prosecute conduct outside the federal and agency standard, as there is no ambiguity in the statute.

Jack v. Barr

Third Circuit: Gordon Tima v. Attorney General United States

Statute that allows discretionary waiver of certain bad acts that would otherwise result in deportation by its terms only refers to fraud affecting admissibility, so a conviction for making false statements during an investigation of the admissibility fraud is not subject to discretionary waiver.

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/164199p.pdf

First Circuit: Rivera v. Sessions

Procedural error in immigration administrative appeal seeking discretionary relief cannot present a cognizable constitutional question for purposes of Article III review, as there is no cognizable, constitutionally guaranteed liberty interest.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/18-1243P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Aguilar de Guillen v. Sessions

Immigration judge's finding that the persecution was economic in nature was not clearly erroneous in forgoing analysis of secondary and mixed motives, as the record indicates that mixed motives were considered, and nothing in the record suggests that either the judge or the agency understood the finding of economic motive to preclude a finding of secondary or mixed motives.

A social group of single mothers who cannot move from their region is insufficiently particular for consideration of the possibility of future persecution. 

Bare claim that agency's data is dated is insufficient to make it arbitrary or capricious absent a showing of changed conditions.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2095P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Sihotang v. Sessions

Abuse of discretion for agency not to reopen immigration removal proceedings where there is a clear factual basis for a claim of changed country conditions affecting his religion and its required practices.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2183P-01A.pdf

First Circuit: Lemus v. Sessions

Exigent grounds for adjustment of immigration status do not repoen the filing period for the claim.

Sua sponte decisions of whether to open a case are unreviewable absent colorable constitutional or legal claims.

Past agency adjudication holding that the agency would modify procedures where a claimant was prima facie eligible antedates the current rules and does not make the present holding arbitrary and capricious.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2068P-01A.pdf

Eighth Circuit: Mark Tettey Kom Degbe v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

Challenge to denial of untimely asylum appeal construed as challenge to decision not to remand.  Insufficient grounds.  Deference to Executive on country conditions.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/171338P.pdf

Second Circuit: Jaen v. Sessions

For the purposes of the Immigration Act, a child lawfully born into a lawful marriage is (conclusively) presumed to be the child of both parents.  Parallel holding under state law as alternative ground.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c47e857f-f701-4ef9-a7f8-4e6809e4f3e8/1/doc/17-1512_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/c47e857f-f701-4ef9-a7f8-4e6809e4f3e8/1/hilite/

Vasquez - Valle v. Jefferson Sessions

State witness tampering statute is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude, since it encompasses a wide range of conduct.  Under modified categorical review, the conviction for knowingly inducing a witness to be absent was not a valid predicate.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/10/13-74213.pdf

Fourth Circuit: Andrew Shaw v. Jefferson Sessions III

Immigration authority can look through convictions for inchoate offenses to determine if the underlying charged conduct bars withholding of removal.

Statutory list of documents that establish conviction for a predicate offense is not an exhaustive list of the manner in which the predicate offense can be proved.

Administrative challenge that the petitioner's conviction was not established by the statutory list does not appropriately exhaust a claim that the predicate conviction does not justify a withholding of removal.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/171213.P.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Martinez De Ryan v. Sessions

Crimes of moral turpitude is not an unconstitutionally vague category for purposes of deportation review.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/07/17/15-70759.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III

Although there is no jurisdictional bar to general federal jurisdiction over an initial denial of asylum, the administrative record has not yet been sufficiently developed by the exhaustion of administrative remedies that would result from challenging a subsequent enforcement of the decision, so jurisdiction is not yet proper under the APA.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D07-13/C:17-3377:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:2185998:S:0

First Circuit: Rosales Justo v. Sessions

Review of agency reversal of immigration judge for clear error on a question of fact is de novo when the question is essentially a legal one.

Agency erred in conflating ability to protect with willingness to protect; a country conditions report was sufficient to cast doubt on the former.

Agency erred in considering lack of reporting to the foreign police force without considering petitioner's motives and reasoning.

Sufficient proof in the record to establish that the threat was not simply an everyday law enforcement question.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-1457P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Victor Revencu v. Jefferson Sessions, III

A reasonable factfinder might have determined that the alien petitioning to stay in the country was not persecuted in his home country due to his political beliefs, but rather that the police had mistreated him because they were attempting to use him as an informant against the political organization, believing him not to be actually committed to the cause.

A reasonable factfinder might have determined that persecution of a spouse for being Roma indicates likely future persecution of the petitioner himself.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60851-CV0.pdf