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

Salazar-Marroquin, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. with a B-2 visitor’s visa in 2000 at age 16 and stayed despite the expiration of his visa. In 2010 he was arrested for driving without a license and was served with a Notice to Appear charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), with a time and date for his hearing “to be set.” Salazar-Marroquin then received two Notices of Hearing, causing confusion, he says, that led him to miss his removal hearing. He was ordered removed in absentia. Two motions to reopen were denied.His third motion to reopen asserted that he had been charged incorrectly because, instead of entering the country illegally, he had been admitted on a visa; because he was not removable as charged, his 10 years’ continuous presence should allow him to seek cancellation of removal if a new Notice to Appear issued. He also asserted that he should be allowed to seek adjustment of status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Salazar-Marroquin filed a supplemental motion to terminate his removal proceedings because his Notice to Appear, lacking the specific time or place of the removal proceedings, was deficient and did not trigger the “stop-time” rule under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1).The Seventh Circuit held that Salazar-Marroquin is entitled to have the Board of Immigration Appeals take a fresh look at his motion to have his case reopened based on evidence that he entered legally, despite the generally applicable time-and-number limits on motions to reopen. View "Salazar-Marroquin v. Barr" on Justia Law

In 2008, Lopez-Garcia’s husband left Guatemala for the U.S. In 2014, Lopez-Garcia and her three minor children entered the U.S. without valid entry documents. Immigration officers apprehended them. An asylum officer found that she demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or torture in Guatemala. Lopez-Garcia and her children were placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1229a. Lopez-Garcia, with counsel, sought asylum listing her children as derivative beneficiaries. She described her experiences as a single mother in Guatemala, which included threats against her children.An IJ found that the threats did not qualify as past persecution and did not find her membership in the proposed particular social group of “Guatemalan females living with her children alone in their country, as their husbands had migrated to the United States and are not able to support or protect themselves and their children” to be the persecutory motive of the men who made the threats. Lopez-Garcia did not show that the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to protect her nor did she show a well-founded fear of future harm. The IJ denied the application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding no abuse of discretion. View "Lopez-Garcia v. Barr" on Justia Law

Marquez and her 12-year-old daughter, Diana applied for admission into the U.S. at the California border. Marquez sought asylum and withholding of removal based on her belief that she could not live as an openly gay woman in Mexico without being persecuted. Marquez claims she received threats (via texts, social media, and letters) of physical harm to herself and her children. She reported the threats to the police, who did not help her. The threats stopped within four months. Marquez testified that she is concerned that her sexual orientation would limit her opportunities to work in Mexico and that other children might bully Diana for having a gay mother. Diana had attempted suicide because her peers at school had bullied her for reasons unrelated to her mother’s sexual orientation. Marquez fears that further bullying could trigger Diana again to try to take her own life.The IJ denied the applications. She found Marquez credible and characterized her experiences in Mexico as “unsettling,” but not sufficiently imminent or severe to establish persecution. The IJ found that the threats stemmed not from her status as a gay person but from a personal dispute with an ex‐girlfriend; Marquez had not shown a well‐founded fear of future persecution. The BIA affirmed, noting reports of “positive developments" concerning the rights of LGBT persons in Mexico.” The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the decision supported by substantial evidence. View "Escobedo-Marquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

Morales, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection as a child. As an adult shooting victim, he petitioned for U nonimmigrant status, a special visa for victims of certain crimes, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U). While his petition was pending, he was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as a noncitizen present in the U.S. without being admitted and under section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) for a 2014 conviction for possession of marijuana. Morales cited his pending U visa petition as a defense to removal. The immigration judge agreed to waive both grounds of inadmissibility to allow him to pursue the U visa petition but later ordered Morales removed as charged on those same grounds. The Seventh Circuit remanded to the BIA. The court rejected an argument that the I’s initial waiver of both grounds of inadmissibility precluded their use as grounds for an order of removal; Morales’s position would effectively turn the inadmissibility waiver into a substitute for the U visa itself. Morales had, however, asked the IJ to continue or administratively close his case instead of ordering removal. The IJ entered the removal order based on the conclusion that those alternative procedures were inappropriate, and the BIA affirmed on the same basis. Those alternatives were wrongly rejected. View "Morales v. Barr" on Justia Law

Dijamco’s mother, a U.S. green card holder, filed a visa petition on Dijamco’s behalf in 1992. Though the petition received approval, Congress restricts the number issued each year. After four years of waiting in the Philippines, Dijamco had not received a visa; she used fraudulent papers to enter the U.S. In 2005, a visa became available, allowing Dijamco to seek a green card. USCIS denied Dijamco’s application. While her administrative appeal was pending, Dijamco’s mother died, which automatically revoked Dijamco’s visa petition. USCIS dismissed her appeal based on changed circumstances. Dijamco attempted to revive her visa petition. The day after USCIS denied her request for humanitarian reinstatement, Congress enacted an amendment, providing that the death of the petitioning family member did not automatically preclude a beneficiary from receiving a visa, 8 U.S.C. 1154. The agency determined that the amendment did not apply and stated that it would not exercise its equitable discretion to reopen Dijamco's adjustment-of-status application because she entered the country fraudulently.DHS has not taken action to compel her removal, which would have provided a pathway for judicial review. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider any of Dijamco’s claims. The Administrative Procedure Act’s general provision authorizing judicial review of final agency actions yields to immigration-specific limitations. USCIS exercised unreviewable discretion in revoking Dijamco’s petition and refusing to reinstate it. View "Dijamco v. Wolf" on Justia Law

In 2001, Ferreyra, 13 years old, entered the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program, 8 U.S.C. 1187, which allows visitors to come to enter for 90 days. Ferreyra's mandatory waiver of the right to contest removal, except based on asylum, was signed by his parents. Ferreyra did not leave. In 2018, he was charged as removable for having overstayed. He declared that he wished to apply for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Ferreyra claimed that, if removed to Argentina, he would face persecution based on his membership in a particular social group—his family. Ferreyra related that, when he was a child in Argentina, his uncle had sexually assaulted him, that his uncle still lived there, and that his uncle had warned that he would kill him if he told anyone about the assault.The IJ denied relief, finding that Ferreyra failed to show that his uncle had targeted him based on his family membership or that the government was unable or unwilling to protect him. The IJ denied Ferreyra’s request for cancellation of removal based on family hardship as unavailable in the asylum-only proceedings. The BIA ordered his removal. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Ferreyra did not present a case warranting relief because of a credible fear of persecution or torture. The waiver is valid; Ferreyra, therefore, cannot present a claim for cancellation of removal based on family hardship. View "Ferreyra v. Barr" on Justia Law

Immigrants have historically been eligible for various public benefits and the receipt of those benefits, with limited exceptions did not jeopardize the immigrant’s chances of becoming a lawful permanent resident or citizen. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a new rule, intended to prevent immigrants whom the Executive Branch deems likely to receive any amount of public assistance, from entering the country or adjusting their status. The rule purports to implement the “public charge” provision of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).The Seventh Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against the rule’s enforcement in favor of Cook County, Illinois. The county had standing because the law threatened immediate financial harm because it would cause immigrants to forego preventative health care. The interests of the county are among those protected or regulated by federal law. There is “abundant evidence” supporting the county’s interpretation of the “public charge provision” as being triggered only by long-term primary dependence and that provision does not provide DHS unfettered discretion. The rule is unlikely to survive “arbitrary and capricious” review; it is unclear how immigration officials are to make “public charge” predictions. Cook County lacks legal remedies for the harms imposed by the rule. View "Cook County v. Wolf" on Justia Law

Chen, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004. A “Notice to Appear,” dated April 2010, did not include the time and place for a hearing, Immigration officials sent Chen another document, dated July 2010, with that information. Chen appeared and sought asylum; the request was denied as untimely. In 2018, the Supreme Court held (Pereira) that a Notice that omits the time and place of the hearing does not comply with 8 U.S.C. 229(a)(1)(G)(i).Chen (untimely) moved to reopen her case to seek cancellation of removal, as an alien who has lived in the U.S. for a decade. Chen contended that, until the Pereira decision, she did not recognize that she might be eligible for that relief. An alien's accumulation of physical presence time is stopped by the commission of a crime or service of a Notice to Appear. Chen and her lawyer assumed that the April 2010 Notice stopped the accrual of time, but Chen argued that Pereira holds otherwise. The BIA denied the motion, reasoning that the required components of a Notice need not be in a single document if multiple documents collectively provide the required information; Pereira held that multiple notices cannot be combined with the effective date of the first document, but did not address what happens once all information has been provided. Time stops once the alien has all of the information required by statute. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Chen did not object to the charging documents for years, without any good excuse for delay. View "Chen v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Attorney General imposed conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG), 34 U.S.C.10151, which the primary source of federal criminal justice enforcement funding for state and local governments. The district court granted a preliminary injunction as to conditions that required that state or local officials honor requests to provide federal agents advance notice of the scheduled release of aliens in custody and that state or local correctional facilities give federal agents access to aliens in their custody. The Seventh Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction. The district court granted a permanent injunction and invalidated a condition requiring that state or local governments certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373, which prohibits them from restricting their officials from communicating information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual to the INS, was unconstitutional but stayed the injunction to the extent that it applied beyond Chicago.The Seventh Circuit again held that the Attorney General cannot pursue the executive branch's policy objectives through the power of the purse or the arm of local law enforcement, rejecting the Attorney General’s assertion that Congress itself provided that authority in the language of the statutes. Chicago has determined that effective law enforcement requires the cooperation of its undocumented residents; such cooperation cannot be accomplished if those residents fear immigration consequences should they communicate with the police; and, local law enforcement must remain independent from federal immigration enforcement. The Byrne JAG grant was enacted to support the needs of local law enforcement to help fight crime, but “is being used as a hammer to further a completely different policy of the executive branch.” States do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants. There is no reason to stay the application of the injunction. View "City of Chicago v. Barr" on Justia Law

Manriquez-Alvarado, a citizen of Mexico, has repeatedly entered the U.S. illegally. He was ordered removed in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2017, each time following a criminal conviction. He was found in the U.S. again in 2018 and was sentenced to 39 months' imprisonment for illegal reentry. 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). All of the convictions for reentry rest on the 2008 removal order. Manriquez-Alvarado argued that this order was invalid because immigration officials never had “jurisdiction” to remove him. His “Notice to Appear” did not include a hearing date. In 2018, the Supreme Court held (Pereira) that a document missing that information does not satisfy the statutory requirements.The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss. Pereira identifies a claims-processing doctrine, not a rule limiting immigration officials' jurisdiction. Older removal orders are pen to collateral attack if the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available; the deportation proceedings improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and the order was fundamentally unfair, 8 U.S.C.1326(d). In 2008, Manriquez-Alvarado stipulated to his removal, waiving his rights to a hearing, administrative review, and judicial review. The statute does not ask whether administrative and judicial remedies would have been futile. It asks whether they were available. Manriquez-Alvarado’s removal was the result of his criminal conduct; he lacked permission to enter the U.S. at all. It is not unfair to order such an alien's deportation. View "United States v. Manriquez-Alvarado" on Justia Law