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

Nadmid, a 57-year-old citizen of Mongolia, came to the U.S. in 2003 on a visitor’s visa. After being arrested for DUI, he voluntarily departed in 2006 and returned to Mongolia, where he started a business. Nadmid returned to the U.S. in 2009. He stated that he was visiting his daughter (who holds a green card), and answered ”no” when asked if he feared returning to Mongolia. In a second interview, after speaking with his daughter, Nadmid stated that, if returned to Mongolia, he feared being killed for rebuffing extortion demands. He described confrontations and threats. An asylum officer, speaking through a translator, determined that Nadmid had a credible fear of persecution. In his asylum application and testimony, Nadmid claimed to have been abducted and beaten. The IJ concluded that Nadmid was not credible, finding inconsistencies in the airport interviews “significant problems.” The IJ gave little weight to newspapers or to a medical certificate. Nadmid’s proposed social group, “Mongolian business owners who seek to expose and end political corruption,” was premised on a profession rather than any immutable, fundamental characteristic. The IJ found that Nadmid did not qualify for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding the credibility determination flawed. View "Nadmid v. Holder" on Justia Law

Mathin sought a declaration of United States nationality, claiming that his Indian-citizen parents had traveled for business while his mother was eight months pregnant with him, and that he was born prematurely in Chicago on September 23, 1965, at the home of a friend, Nielsen, with whom they were staying. According to Mathin, a midwife was present at the birth, along with the midwife’s 17-year-old niece, Nielsen, and Nielsen’s mother. Only Mathin’s father was still living at the time of trial. Mathin stated that after his birth, he was taken to Norwegian American Hospital for examination. No birth certificate was filed. Mathin was unable to provide any records from Norwegian American Hospital indicating that he was there. Although the State Department attempted to verify his parents’ travel through the visa or passport records, it was unable to find any record of the trip. The district court held that Mathin had failed to establish that he was a United States national. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court has recognized that doubts should be resolved in favor of the United States in cases involving a petition under 8 U.S.C. 1503. View "Mathin v. Kerry" on Justia Law

Chen, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. in 2005. DHS sought to remove him as “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Conceding removability, Chen has applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He argued that Chinese authorities will persecute him for refusing, by having two children, to follow the one‐child policy. He testified that he fled China after he was arrested, detained for six months, and beaten, in his home province of Fujian, when officials found out that his wife was pregnant with their second child. The police released him after his parents paid 480 dollars, on the condition that his wife undergo forced sterilization or they pay a fine of approximately 3,200 dollars to register the son. During the removal proceedings, the case focused on whether Chen actually has two children. The IJ denied relief and the BIA denied a motion to reopen. The Seventh Circuit remanded: the BIA must determine whether Chen’s attorneys incompetently neglect ed to offer evidence and arguments that might have resolved the inconsistencies identified by the IJ and whether the IJ would have ruled against Chen anyway. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

He, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. in 2007 through Indonesia and Canada. A year later He retained an attorney to apply for asylum based on mistreatment (arrest and beatings) that he had suffered in Fujian Province on account of his Christian beliefs. A month later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability as an alien present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The immigration judge denied relief, finding that: He’s testimony was not credible; he failed (under the REAL ID Act) to provide corroborating evidence; He was statutorily ineligible for asylum because he did not apply within one year of his arrival; and He was ineligible for withholding or CAT protection because he failed to show it is more likely than not that his life would be threatened or that he would be tortured in China. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and denied a motion to reconsider. The Seventh Circuit denied He’s petition for review, which focused on only the underlying denial of his application for asylum and withholding, a ruling not properly before the court. He did not argue that denial of his motion to reconsider was erroneous. View "He v. Holder" on Justia Law

Lenjinac was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1987 and is a Muslim. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnia-Herzegovina was entrenched in a civil war, characterized by ethnic cleansing. Lenjinac’s family home was burned to the ground and Serbian forces captured several male family members who have not been seen since. In 2002, Lenjinac emigrated to the U.S. He became a permanent resident in 2005. In 2010, Lenjinac pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine. Charged with removability as an aggravated felon (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), Lenjinac sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. He indicated that given his criminal history in the U.S., he would likely be detained upon his return and tortured. He stated that he would have no safe place to live because he has no family or home in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The IJ only considered CAT deferral because the aggravated felony conviction rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and granted his application. Although the BIA accepted the IJ’s findings of fact, it vacated the deferral of removal, citing lack of evidence that parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina retained an interest in harming Lenjinac or that he would be imprisoned for the purpose of causing him pain and suffering. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Lenjinac v. Holder" on Justia Law

Souley, a citizen of Niger, entered the U.S. in 2005 on a visitor’s visa and overstayed. Apparently unaware of a 2008 removal order, Souley married a U.S. citizen in 2009. After his removal was reopened, Souley’s wife’s I-130 petition was denied for lack of clear and convincing evidence that the marriage was bona fide and entered into in good faith, 8 U.S.C. 1154(g), 1255(e). Souley sought to continue his removal proceedings to give his U.S. citizen wife time to file a second I-130 visa petition on his behalf. The IJ thought her second, unfiled petition had no greater chance of success and denied the request for a continuance, noting that Souley’s wife had failed to appeal that decision or introduce any new evidence to support the existence of a valid marriage. The Board upheld the IJ’s ruling, The Seventh Circuit denied review. Souley had over a year and a half to gather additional documents to support a second I-130 petition, yet he failed to do so. Souley never explained what documents he would present if the IJ had given him more time. View "Souley v. Holder" on Justia Law

Bouras, a citizen of Algeria, entered the U.S. in 1997 as a nonimmigrant business visitor and overstayed his visa. In 2006, while living in Chicago, he married Schreiner, who lived in Ohio. He was granted conditional permanent resident status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. For most of their two-and-a-half year marriage, Bouras continued working in Chicago; Schreiner remained in Ohio. For at least six months, Bouras was in Algeria alone, visiting family. The marriage ended by divorce before Bouras had obtained unconditional permanent residency. He was placed in removal proceedings after he failed to convince USCIS that he had entered the marriage in good faith, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c)(4)(B). Bouras testified, but neither his ex-wife nor any other witness appeared at the hearing to testify about the marriage. Bouras sought a continuance so that his ex-wife could testify. The immigration judge denied that request, stating that no “extenuating circumstances” justified a continuance and finding that Bouras had not established the marriage had been in good faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision. The Seventh Circuit denied review; denial of Bouras’s last-minute request for a continuance was not an abuse of discretion. View "Bouras v. Holder" on Justia Law

Keirkhavash did not depart when her tourist visa lapsed. Two days before the statutory deadline, she sought asylum, contending that Iran would persecute her because she had supported a group (MEK) seeking overthrow of Iran’s government. She claimed she had been expelled from college, denied employment, imprisoned, kicked and denied food while confined, leading her to flee Iran in 1999. The IJ credited this testimony but denied the application because the State Department had classified MEK as a terrorist organization, which made Keirkhavash ineligible under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(v). The Board of Immigration Appeals remanded, concluding that she remained eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Before the new hearing, Keirkhavash changed her story, claiming that some unknown person had forged her signature and that she and her father had given testimony consistent with the written statement because her lawyer told them to lie. She now claims that her former husband had accused her of adultery, which could lead to her being stoned in Iran and that Iran would persecute her because of her statement that she had supported MEK, despite the statement’s withdrawal. No corroboration was offered for either ground. The BIA and Seventh Circuit upheld denial of her petitions, characterizing Keirkhavash and her father as confessed liars. View "Keirkhavash v. Holder" on Justia Law

Sibanda arrived in the U.S. on a non‐immigrant visa. She sought asylum in 2009, claiming that, after her husband died, her brother‐in‐law attempted to rape her and force her to become his second wife, in accordance with the custom of “bride‐price” practiced by several tribes. Sibanda testified that Zimbabwean law did not protect her; when she sought help from the police, they told her that they would not intervene in a family matter. Her family and her tribal chief insisted that she was bound by the custom. The IJ denied relief, finding that Sibanda credibly had testified that a bride‐price had been paid for her marriage. He did not address the credibility of her testimony about her duties to and attacks by her brother-in-law, but concluded that Sibanda’s failure adequately to corroborate her testimony meant that she had not demonstrated past persecution. She had not presented a country report or “any statements from any authority or anyone else who was aware” of the attacks. The Board of Immigration Appeals also found her account credible, but dismissed her appeal for insufficient corroboration. The Seventh Circuit remanded; the Board did not adequately consider whether more corroborating information was reasonably available to Sibanda. View "Sibanda v. Holder" on Justia Law

A citizen of Mexico, Duarte entered the U.S. without inspection in 2000. In 2011, after he was acquitted of heroin trafficking, DHS issued a Notice to Appear. Duarte did not appear. A removal order issued. Duarte claimed he was unaware of the notice. The IJ reopened proceedings. Duarte applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming that he had cooperated with the U.S. DEA and feared retribution from the Zeta drug cartel. At the hearing, Duarte denied the DEA story, but claimed that the threats stemmed from his escape, after the cartel held him for ransom in 1996. Duarte submitted an affidavit from a friend in Mexico about phone calls from suspected cartel members warning that Duarte would face retribution. The IJ denied asylum and withholding of removal. Duarte on appeal that he was targeted for persecution because of his “membership in the particular group of successful business[men],” under extortionate attacks by cartels. The BIA held that Duarte failed to preserve the issue, but considered testimony and determined that the cartel detained him for money rather than to persecute him on any basis recognized by law. Duarte did not submit evidence to suggest torture at the hands (or with the acquiescence) of government actors. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Duarte-Salagoza v. Holder" on Justia Law