Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The petitioner is a Nigerian citizen who entered the United States on a business visa in 2004 and overstayed after the visa’s expiration in 2005. Following charges of deportability in 2007, he conceded removability in 2008. In 2012, he sought cancellation of removal and also applied for special cancellation of removal under the Violence Against Women Act, citing his current wife’s medical issues and financial challenges, as well as abuse endured from his former wife. At a merits hearing in 2021, the petitioner, his family, and a psychologist testified regarding his eligibility for relief.An Immigration Judge (IJ) reviewed the evidence and denied both cancellation and special cancellation of removal. The IJ found that the petitioner did not meet the statutory requirements for either form of relief, including the necessary showing of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative and sufficient evidence of battery or extreme cruelty. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision in full, explicitly referencing Matter of Burbano to preserve the IJ’s findings for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision, applying a substantial-evidence standard to the agency’s hardship and battery/cruelty determinations, consistent with recent Supreme Court precedent. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the BIA did not err in summarily affirming the IJ’s order and that substantial evidence supported the agency’s denial of relief. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate either exceptional and extremely unusual hardship or battery/extreme cruelty sufficient to warrant cancellation or special cancellation of removal. The petition for review was denied. View "Okene v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Haiti was admitted to the United States in 2016. He later pleaded guilty to smuggling goods, specifically exporting fifty firearms to Haiti without the required license, in violation of federal law. These firearms were concealed in vehicles shipped from Colorado to Florida, and then sent to Haiti. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him as removable for engaging in activity to violate U.S. laws prohibiting the export of goods.An Immigration Judge with the U.S. Department of Justice sustained the charges of removability and denied his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The judge found his testimony lacking in candor and determined that he failed to demonstrate it was more likely than not he would be tortured if removed to Haiti. The judge noted that threats against him were speculative, not linked to government action or acquiescence, and that his relatives in Haiti remained safe. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, rejected his argument that the removal provision should apply only to explicit national security threats, and concluded that his conviction for illegal exportation satisfied the statutory grounds for removal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court denied the petition for review, holding that the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(A)(i) covers any activity to violate laws prohibiting the export of goods, not just acts involving national security threats. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral, as the petitioner failed to show a particularized risk of torture or government acquiescence, and that no due process violation had occurred. View "Olibris v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Two related cases concern an uncle and nephew, both born in Mexico, who claim United States citizenship through their ancestor, Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra, a woman born in Kansas in 1924. Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra’s son, born in Mexico in 1944, is the father of the older appellant and grandfather of the younger. Both appellants were born in Mexico; one was a long-term lawful permanent resident later removed for a felony, while the other was a former lawful permanent resident subject to a voluntary departure order, a criminal conviction, and subsequent removals. The appellants argue that citizenship passed to them through Cruz Rodriguez de Guerra and seek various forms of relief, including damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and habeas corpus.Their cases were brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where both raised claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The district court dismissed all claims. The appellants then filed timely appeals.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the damages claims because, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the appellants are considered aliens and the claims arise from actions associated with removal proceedings. The court also concluded that the appellants failed to exhaust administrative remedies required for declaratory judgment claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), and the APA claims were jurisdictionally barred due to lack of final agency action. The habeas claim was barred because the petitioner was not “in custody,” and the due process claims were forfeited for inadequate briefing. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissals and modified one to be without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. View "Guerra Quezada v. USA" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident of the United States, who is a Nigerian citizen, pleaded guilty to willfully and knowingly using a forged or counterfeit Nigerian passport to open a bank account, violating federal law. Years after becoming a permanent resident, he was detained upon his return to the country following international travel. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with inadmissibility, alleging that his conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude, and began removal proceedings.An immigration judge found him inadmissible based on this conviction and ordered his removal to Nigeria. The Board of Immigration Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the immigration judge’s decision. The petitioner then sought review of the Board’s order, arguing that his conviction for false use of a passport does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court stated that it now independently interprets the relevant statutes, following recent Supreme Court guidance. Applying the categorical approach, the Fifth Circuit concluded that a conviction under the relevant passport fraud statute—specifically, willful and knowing use of a false, forged, or invalid passport—requires conduct that is inherently fraudulent or deceitful. The court found that all forms of conduct criminalized by the statute involve moral turpitude because they entail willful deception. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner’s conviction is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, making him inadmissible under immigration law. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Ademola v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Three Venezuelan nationals, alleged by the government to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were detained in Texas following a presidential proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This proclamation, issued in March 2025, authorized immediate removal of Venezuelan citizens aged fourteen or older, residing in the United States, who were not naturalized or lawful permanent residents and were identified as members of the gang. The petitioners challenged the proclamation, arguing that it exceeded the President’s authority under the AEA and violated due process rights. They sought class certification and injunctive relief to prevent removal under the AEA.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied temporary restraining orders and class certification. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit initially dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, vacated that dismissal and remanded, instructing the Fifth Circuit to address two issues: whether the petitioners were entitled to a preliminary injunction against removal under the AEA, and whether the notice provided for due process claims was sufficient for the putative class. The Supreme Court also allowed the government to remove the petitioners under other lawful authorities.After remand, the three named petitioners were removed from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), not the AEA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that, because the petitioners were no longer in the country and no class had been certified, it was impossible to grant any effectual relief. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot for lack of jurisdiction, declining to substitute new class representatives on appeal but leaving open the possibility for future proceedings in the district court. View "W.M.M. v. Trump" on Justia Law

A citizen of Afghanistan who had worked as security personnel for high-ranking Afghan government officials fled the country after the Taliban regained control in 2021. The Taliban targeted him and his family due to his former employment and Tajik ethnicity, leading them to go into hiding and eventually leave Afghanistan. Upon arriving in the United States in 2024, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, fearing that returning to Afghanistan would result in his death.An Immigration Judge found him removable for lacking valid entry documents and denied all relief after concluding that his testimony was not credible. The judge based this adverse credibility determination mainly on perceived discrepancies about his employment history and the dates he held certain positions, as well as inconsistencies regarding his past imprisonment and harm to his family. The Immigration Judge also found that he failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed these findings and dismissed his appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court determined there were no material inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony regarding his employment history or his account of prior imprisonment; any discrepancies were the result of translation errors between the Afghan and Gregorian calendars. The court also concluded that the agency failed to meaningfully consider key pieces of evidence, including photographs, government identification cards, and Taliban-issued warrants for his arrest. The Fifth Circuit therefore granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The agency was instructed to reconsider the credibility determination and to meaningfully evaluate key supporting evidence. View "Eqbal v. Blanche" on Justia Law

Three individuals, each having entered the United States unlawfully more than a decade ago, were detained by federal immigration authorities after routine traffic stops in Texas. None had criminal histories, and each was a long-term resident and father of U.S. citizen children. They petitioned for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), claiming exceptional hardship to their U.S. citizen children if removed. After being detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), they filed habeas corpus petitions, asserting their detention violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas reviewed each petition, applying the procedural due process framework from Mathews v. Eldridge. The district courts found the mandatory detention regime unconstitutional as applied to these petitioners, ordered their immediate release, and required that any future detention must be preceded by a hearing to determine dangerousness or risk of flight. The government appealed these rulings, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit consolidated the cases.The Fifth Circuit examined precedent, including Zadvydas v. Davis, Demore v. Kim, and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, and concluded that physical presence and long-term residence within the United States entitles aliens to due process protections. The court held that mandatory, indefinite detention of noncriminal, long-term resident aliens under § 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment. The government must provide a bond hearing within ninety days of detention to determine if continued detention is justified by individualized findings of dangerousness or flight risk. The court affirmed the district courts’ grants of habeas corpus and clarified the scope of its decision to similar aliens detained under § 1225(b)(2)(A). View "Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega" on Justia Law

The plaintiff claimed he was born in Laredo, Texas, and used a U.S. passport for travel. After reporting his passport stolen in Mexico and later recovering it, he attempted to re-enter the United States, where the passport was retained. Over the following years, he submitted four separate passport applications, each denied by the Department of State. The agency cited concerns including a birth certificate filed by a birth attendant suspected of submitting false records, the existence of a conflicting Mexican birth certificate, and insufficient early life documentation to prove a U.S. birthplace. The plaintiff failed to provide requested records or adequate explanations for the discrepancies.After the repeated denials, the plaintiff petitioned the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas for a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief, asserting claims under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Mandamus Act, and constitutional provisions. The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding the claims time-barred, jurisdictionally barred, or insufficiently pleaded.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) was untimely, as it was not brought within five years of the first final administrative denial, and equitable tolling was not warranted. The court affirmed that the APA and Mandamus Act claims were jurisdictionally barred because § 1503(a) provides an adequate remedy, regardless of whether the plaintiff timely pursued it. The court also held that the constitutional claims failed to state a claim, as no independent constitutional right to the relief sought existed beyond the statutory remedy. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims. View "Cortez v. Rubio" on Justia Law

The case concerns an asylum seeker from El Salvador who entered the United States without authorization in 2022. He sought asylum, testifying that he had been forced into the MS-13 gang, later allowed to leave but forcibly tattooed, and had suffered torture and threats in El Salvador due to his gang affiliation. An Immigration Judge denied his requests for relief and ordered removal. During his appeal, the Department of Homeland Security inadvertently disclosed his personal information online. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order but remanded the case for further proceedings on his eligibility for deferral of removal. His counsel later withdrew all applications for relief, claiming he was a Mexican citizen, and he was ordered removed to Mexico or, alternatively, El Salvador. Proceeding without counsel, he appealed again, contesting the withdrawal of his applications, but the Board dismissed his appeal.He subsequently filed a motion to reopen his proceedings, arguing that new evidence—specifically, the high-profile arrest and extradition of his father-in-law, a former MS-13 leader—constituted changed country conditions increasing his risk if returned to El Salvador. He also requested equitable tolling of the filing deadline, citing ineffective assistance of counsel, his pro se status, and other obstacles.The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen as untimely, finding no evidence of materially changed country conditions, only a change in personal circumstances. The Board also found no basis for equitable tolling, as he failed to demonstrate that counsel’s ineffectiveness prevented timely filing. The petitioner then sought review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying both the exception for changed country conditions and equitable tolling. The court denied the petition for review. View "Prado-Majano v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A private auditor, hired to review an international consulting company’s immigration practices, alleged that the company engaged in widespread visa fraud. He claimed that, to reduce costs and circumvent stricter requirements, the company wrongfully applied for less expensive visas (L-1A and B-1) for employees who should have received H-1B visas, and then assigned those workers to roles requiring H-1B status. The complaint also asserted that the company underpaid visa-dependent workers, in violation of federal wage regulations, resulting in reduced payroll tax withholding.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas reviewed these claims after the government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the company had no obligation under the False Claims Act (FCA) to pay higher visa fees for visas it never applied for, nor any obligation to withhold additional taxes on wages it never paid. The court reasoned that any duty to pay arose only if the company actually applied for, and was granted, the more expensive visas, or if it paid higher wages to its employees.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Fifth Circuit held that, under the FCA, reverse false claim liability requires a present, established duty to pay money to the government—not a contingent or potential obligation. The court found that federal regulations did not impose an immediate duty on the company to pay higher visa fees or to withhold more in taxes without first applying for the appropriate visas or paying higher wages. Because the complaint did not allege the existence of such an obligation, it failed to state a claim under the FCA. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Palmer v. Tata Consulting Services" on Justia Law