Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Five Indian citizens entered the United States on F-1 student visas, completed their studies, and enrolled in “optional practical training” (OPT) programs. They allege that the organizations providing their OPT programs failed to deliver any actual training or work, and ultimately ceased communication. After returning to India for brief visits, each attempted to reenter the United States. At the airports, immigration officials revoked their visas. Four were subjected to expedited removal, while the fifth was permitted to withdraw his application for entry. All five returned to India and subsequently filed suit from abroad.The plaintiffs brought their case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, invoking the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the administrative findings that they had misused the OPT program. They claimed they never received notice of any administrative proceedings or an opportunity to respond. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(A)(i), which generally bars judicial review of individual determinations or claims arising from expedited removal orders under §1225(b)(1). The court found that the plaintiffs’ attempt to challenge the underlying findings, rather than the removal orders themselves, did not avoid the jurisdictional bar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that §1252(a)(2)(A)(i) precludes judicial review not only of expedited removal orders but also of the underlying justifications for those orders. The court further concluded that the administrative findings regarding the OPT programs were not “final” agency actions reviewable under the APA, as they were merely steps leading to the removal orders. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs’ claims. View "Dubey v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

A woman and her son fled Honduras in 2016, fearing violence from the former leader of their land cooperative, who had been ousted after allegations of embezzlement and violence against dissenters. The woman had publicly opposed this leader and received threats from his associates, including intimidation outside her home. After arriving in the United States, she learned that other cooperative leaders had been murdered, which she attributed to the same individual. Although her immediate family remained in Honduras without incident, she believed her public opposition made her a unique target if she returned.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her and her son. She conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing threats and violence linked to the former cooperative leader. An immigration judge found her testimony credible but denied all relief, concluding she had not suffered past persecution and did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. The judge found that Honduran authorities were able and willing to protect her and that she could reasonably relocate within Honduras. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, relying on the findings regarding government protection and internal relocation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, applying a deferential substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s conclusions that Honduran authorities were both willing and able to protect the petitioner and that she could reasonably relocate within Honduras. Because either ground was sufficient to deny relief, the court denied the petition for review. View "Martinez-Martinez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The petitioner, who entered the United States without authorization in 2006, lived with his wife and three children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. He was the primary financial provider for the family, earning significantly more than his wife and providing health insurance for the household. The family faced removal proceedings after the petitioner was arrested for driving on a suspended license and leaving the scene of an accident. The petitioner argued that his removal would cause his children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, citing their emotional distress and the family’s financial dependence on him.An immigration judge found that the petitioner met all statutory requirements for cancellation of removal except for the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard. The judge determined that, while the family would experience financial and emotional difficulties, these did not rise above what is typically expected in removal cases. The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, assuming for the sake of argument that all three children were qualifying relatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, holding that it had jurisdiction to consider legal questions related to the application of the hardship standard. The court applied a deferential standard of review, as suggested by recent Supreme Court precedent, and concluded that the immigration judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous. The court held that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his removal would result in hardship substantially beyond what is ordinarily expected in such cases. Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santos Mendoza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

David Fiddler, a Jamaican national who entered the United States as a child, was convicted in Illinois of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder, resulting in a lengthy prison sentence. He suffers from severe schizophrenia, which has led to repeated hospitalizations. After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him in 2021, Fiddler sought deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that, if returned to Jamaica, he would likely become homeless, lack access to mental health care, and face violence from police or private individuals, with the acquiescence of authorities, due to his mental illness.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially denied Fiddler’s CAT claim, finding insufficient evidence that he would face a substantial risk of torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded for further analysis, but the IJ again denied relief, concluding that while Fiddler was likely to become homeless and vulnerable, the evidence did not show a substantial risk of torture or that Jamaican officials would act with the specific intent required under the CAT. The BIA affirmed, holding that Fiddler had not demonstrated that harm he feared would be inflicted with the specific intent to torture, nor that Jamaican officials would acquiesce in torture by private actors. After a further remand and another BIA affirmation (with one dissent), Fiddler petitioned for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and denied the petition. The court held that Fiddler failed to establish it was more likely than not he would be tortured with the specific intent required by the CAT, either by government officials or with their acquiescence. The court found the BIA’s analysis consistent with CAT standards and concluded that the evidence did not compel a contrary result. View "Fiddler v Bondi" on Justia Law

P.A.-V., a Mexican citizen, first entered the U.S. in 1995 but was removed in 1998 and 1999. He re-entered in 1999 and remained until 2020 when he was arrested for DUI, leading to the reinstatement of his removal order by the Department of Homeland Security. He applied for protection under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), fearing violence in Mexico due to cartel activity linked to his parents' land. An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision.The immigration judge found P.A.-V.'s testimony credible but concluded that he had not shown past persecution or a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture. The judge noted that the violence experienced by his family was not directly linked to him and was consistent with general violence in the region. The judge also determined that P.A.-V. could safely relocate within Mexico. The BIA affirmed the judge's decision on the same grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case, applying a highly deferential standard of review. The court found that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's and BIA's conclusions. The court held that P.A.-V. failed to establish past persecution or a reasonable fear of future persecution, as the evidence did not show a direct link between the violence and a threat to him. The court also agreed that P.A.-V. could reasonably relocate within Mexico. Additionally, the court found that P.A.-V. did not meet the higher burden required for CAT relief, as there was no evidence that the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to any harm he might face. Consequently, the petition for review was denied. View "P. A.-V. v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Tarlochan Singh, a Sikh man from India, fled to the United States in 2010 after suffering repeated violence due to his political affiliations. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with inadmissibility, and Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his applications in 2017, finding his claims credible but insufficient to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision in 2018.Singh attempted to file a petition for review with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but his attorney failed to meet the statutory deadline. Singh then filed a motion to reopen and reissue the BIA's decision, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied this motion, stating that Singh did not meet the procedural requirements. Singh filed another motion to reconsider, which was also denied by the BIA for being untimely and number barred, among other reasons. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the BIA to consider the merits of Singh's ineffective assistance claim, but the BIA again denied the motion, citing failure to meet procedural requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Singh's petition and upheld the BIA's decision. The court found that Singh failed to comply with the procedural requirements for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as outlined in Matter of Lozada. Specifically, Singh did not provide a detailed account of his agreement with his attorney, did not notify his attorney of the allegations, and did not provide proof of filing a disciplinary complaint. Consequently, the Seventh Circuit denied Singh's petition for review. View "Singh v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Mejia-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Honduras, arrived in the United States with her children in June 2018. They were placed in immigration removal proceedings in October 2018. Mejia conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming fear of persecution in Honduras from a man who allegedly killed six members of her family. The immigration judge (IJ) found her ineligible for asylum, denied her requests for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT, and ordered her removal to Honduras.Mejia appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board), which upheld the IJ's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Board agreed with the IJ that Mejia did not timely object to the Notice to Appear (NTA) defects and had waived her objection by conceding removability. The Board also found insufficient evidence that Mejia had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution, attributing the violence to a personal dispute rather than her membership in a particular social group.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Mejia had suffered past persecution due to credible, serious threats and actual violence against her family by Cesar Ramirez Mejia. The court also determined that Mejia had a well-founded fear of future persecution, as Cesar had carried out his threats by killing many of her relatives. The court concluded that Mejia's family relationships were the reason she was targeted, establishing the requisite nexus between her family membership and the persecution.The Seventh Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the Board for further consideration of whether the Honduran government was sufficiently involved in Cesar’s persecution of Mejia. View "Mejia-Hernandez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Gurkirat Singh, a citizen of India and a member of the Sikh ethnoreligious group, fled to the United States after being beaten and threatened by members of the Congress Party due to his political activities with the Mann Party. Singh applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his requests, finding that Singh could reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision.The IJ found Singh's testimony credible but concluded that he had not suffered persecution, would not face a substantial risk of torture if deported, and could safely relocate within India. The IJ noted that Singh, a healthy 25-year-old male, had successfully relocated to the United States and maintained a livelihood. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision, finding no clear error in the IJ's relocation or past persecution findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Singh's petition. Singh argued that the BIA improperly deferred to the IJ, erred in finding he could reasonably relocate within India, and erred in finding he had not suffered past persecution. The court found that the BIA did not defer to the IJ but conducted an independent review of the record. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the IJ and BIA's conclusion that Singh could reasonably relocate within India, given his health, resilience, and adaptability. Consequently, the court denied Singh's petition for review, affirming that he is ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. View "Singh v Bondi" on Justia Law

Carlos Antonio de Paz-Peraza, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States due to threats from MS-13 gang members. Between May and July 2016, the gang threatened him multiple times, demanding he join them or risk his family's safety. They stole his phone and work tools, and on two occasions in July, they threatened him with a firearm, resulting in a shootout where both a gang member and de Paz-Peraza's police officer friend were shot. De Paz-Peraza fled to the United States on July 25, 2016, fearing for his life and the safety of his family, who continued to receive threats from the gang.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against de Paz-Peraza, which he conceded. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An Immigration Judge (IJ) found him credible and acknowledged his past persecution but denied his asylum application, stating that his political opinion was not expressed to the gang and that his proposed social groups were not cognizable. The IJ also found no nexus between the harm suffered and any proposed social group, concluding that the gang targeted him for recruitment and not because of his membership in a particular social group. The IJ denied withholding of removal on the same grounds and rejected his CAT claim, as he feared private actors, not the government. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ's decision without a written opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the IJ's decision under the substantial evidence standard. The court held that de Paz-Peraza failed to establish a nexus between his persecution and his membership in the proposed social group of young male Salvadorans. The court found that the gang's threats were related to recruitment and retaliation, not his social group status. Consequently, the court denied his petition for review. View "Antonio de Paz-Peraza v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Sotir Libarov, a Bulgarian citizen, applied for lawful permanent resident status in the United States based on his marriage to Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. USCIS interviewed both separately and concluded that the marriage was a sham, denying Libarov's application in June 2022. Libarov then submitted a FOIA request to ICE seeking documents related to himself. ICE initially routed the request to USCIS, but Libarov clarified he wanted documents from ICE. By November 2022, having received no response, Libarov filed a lawsuit against both ICE and USCIS.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Libarov's claims against USCIS and later granted summary judgment for ICE on most issues. The court ruled that Libarov could not seek declaratory relief solely for delayed FOIA disclosure and that FOIA provided an adequate remedy, precluding his APA claim. However, the court ordered ICE to disclose portions of the withheld document containing basic personal information about Libarov.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that Libarov was not entitled to declaratory relief for the delayed FOIA response, as the agency had eventually conducted an appropriate search and provided the requested documents. The court also upheld the district court's decision to withhold parts of the document under FOIA's exemption 7(A), which protects information related to ongoing law enforcement proceedings. Finally, the appellate court confirmed that FOIA provides an adequate remedy, thus barring Libarov's APA claim. View "Libarov v ICE" on Justia Law