Background
Patria Laureano, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in nineteen ninety-four. After being arrested for heroin trafficking in two thousand and seven and serving a twenty-four-month sentence, she was ordered removed in two thousand and eight. She unlawfully reentered the United States in two thousand and nine and was arrested again in two thousand and twenty-three, leading to the reinstatement of her removal order. Laureano applied for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief, fearing harm from her former partner in the Dominican Republic. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied both claims.
The court’s reasoning
The court held it had jurisdiction to review the withholding and Convention Against Torture orders under the Immigration and Nationality Act following the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi. Regarding the Convention Against Torture claim, the court found the Board of Immigration Appeals correctly concluded that Laureano failed to show it was more likely than not that she would be tortured, noting the incidents occurred approximately fifteen years ago. On the statutory withholding claim, the panel could not reach a majority. One judge would have held that the Attorney General’s opinion in Matter of Y-L- bars the claim, while another would have held that Matter of Y-L- is ultra vires. A third member would have dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was denied by an equally divided vote.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The Board of Immigration Appeals order denying Laureano’s applications for withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture relief remains in effect. The lack of a majority opinion on the statutory withholding claim means the legal question regarding the validity of the Matter of Y-L- presumption remains unresolved in the Third Circuit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download