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

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order upholding the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal and in affirming the IJ's decision finding that she received proper notice of her removal hearing and failed to show a change in country conditions. View "Garcia Nunez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action seeking derivative U.S. citizenship. The court held that plaintiff could not prove his derivative citizenship as a matter of law under the former Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 301(a)(7), 309(a). Plaintiff was born out of wedlock in Mexico and is the son of an U.S. citizen father and Mexican national mother. In this case, plaintiff could not prove as a matter of law that he was legitimated before turning twenty-one years old and thus could not claim derivative citizenship. View "Gonzalez-Segura v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, petitioner filed his motion to reopen ten years after the immigration court issued his prior removal order, and thus failed to comply with the ninety-day statutory deadline. The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's collateral challenge to the prior removal order; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claim that conditions in his country of origin had materially changed; petitioner's contention that the BIA violated his due process rights was unavailing, because this court has held that an alien has no liberty interest in a motion to reopen and therefore cannot establish a due process violation in the context of reopening proceedings; and the court rejected petitioner's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied in part the petition for review. View "Mejia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras, sought review of the BIA's decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, petitioner filed his motion to reopen ten years after the immigration court issued his prior removal order, and thus failed to comply with the ninety-day statutory deadline. The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner's collateral challenge to the prior removal order; the court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claim that conditions in his country of origin had materially changed; petitioner's contention that the BIA violated his due process rights was unavailing, because this court has held that an alien has no liberty interest in a motion to reopen and therefore cannot establish a due process violation in the context of reopening proceedings; and the court rejected petitioner's remaining claims. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied in part the petition for review. View "Mejia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding petitioner eligible for deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) for possessing a controlled substance in violation of Oklahoma law. Petitioner challenged both the determination that the Oklahoma schedule of controlled substances was a categorical match to the federal schedule and that in order to terminate his order of removal he was required to show a "realistic probability" that Oklahoma actually prosecutes cases involving substances not included in the federal schedules. The Fifth Circuit has held that the realistic probability test applies whenever the categorical approach is employed. See United States v. Castillo-Rivera, 853 F.3d 218 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The court held that petitioner waived this viable argument under Castillo-Rivera, because he never suggested that the realistic probability test was satisfied in this case. Because petitioner waived his only viable argument, the court denied relief. View "Rodriguez Vazquez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protections under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner argued that his diagnosis with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should have been taken into consideration when determining whether inconsistencies in his statements rendered his testimony not credible. The court held that petitioner failed to show that no reasonable fact-finder could make an adverse credibility finding and thus the court must defer to the determinations of the IJ and BIA that his testimony was not credible. View "Singh v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of a motion to reopen petitioner's deportation 23 years after the final deportation order. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to provide any material, previously unavailable evidence to justify reopening. The court also held that petitioner did not have a protected liberty interest in his motion to reopen, and his due-process claim failed. View "Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's order upholding the denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte or to grant administrative closure. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition in part because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition and declining to administratively close the case. In this case, the controlling statutory requirements, of which petitioner had notice, obligated him to keep the immigration court apprised of his current contact information. Therefore, the court rejected petitioner's claims of lack of notice and violation of due process. The court dismissed in part because it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte. View "Hernandez-Castillo v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, petitioner and his father sought review of the BIA's holding that petitioner was inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to adjust his citizenship status because his conviction for misprision of a felony is a crime involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, the government challenged two aspects of the district court's decision. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the BIA's order in the first appeal and denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in holding that misprision of a felony is a crime of moral turpitude. Although the district court correctly held that the residency requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 1409 violate equal protection, the court reversed the district court's judgment that petitioner is a United States citizen under a constitutional reading of those statutes in light of the limited remedy the Supreme Court announced for that violation. View "Villegas-Sarabia v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order denying a motion to reconsider petitioner's motion to reopen. Applying Chevron deference to the agency's decision, the court held that petitioner failed to brief her ineffective assistance of counsel claims and therefore waived those claims. View "Lowe v. Sessions" on Justia Law