Correspondent
Breaking news correspondent, covers late-night developments and emergency rulings.
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Joseph Michael Bova, Jr.'s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that Bova failed to allege any basis for federal question or diversity jurisdiction in his pleadings.
The Supreme Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates substantial-evidence review for the Board of Immigration Appeals' determinations regarding whether undisputed facts constitute persecution. The Court affirmed the First Circuit's removal order, ruling that the record did not compel a finding of persecution under this deferential standard.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied consolidated petitions for review regarding an Afghan national's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The court upheld the Board of Immigration Appeals' factual findings that the petitioner failed to prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, concluding that these findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the petitioner failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. The court held that the proposed group definition was impermissibly defined by the persecution itself and lacked the requisite social distinctness under prevailing precedent.
The Third Circuit clarified that battered child relief is available if the abuser becomes a lawful permanent resident after the abuse occurs, rejecting a prior Board of Immigration Appeals interpretation. However, the court affirmed the denial of standard cancellation of removal because the record supports the finding that the petitioner's mother would not suffer exceptional hardship.
The Sixth Circuit denied Amadou Sy's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision, upholding the finding that his testimony regarding alleged persecution in Mauritania lacked credibility. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's determination that Sy's accounts of repeated arrests were strikingly similar and implausible.
The Third Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that rejected an asylum claim based on a lack of nexus between the petitioner's harm and his status as a cooperating witness. The court upheld the finding that the petitioner was targeted for financial extortion rather than because of his membership in a particular social group.
The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal because the petitioner failed to prove she was unable to leave her abusive relationship. The court also dismissed her Convention Against Torture claim because she did not exhaust the issue before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief to two Salvadoran nationals. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency's findings that the petitioners failed to prove past persecution, a well-founded fear of future persecution, or eligibility under a cognizable particular social group.
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an immigration order, upholding the agency's finding that the petitioner's proposed social group lacked the required particularity and social distinction. The court also affirmed the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture, though a judge dissented on the grounds that the agency failed to properly consider evidence of torture risk.
