Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A lawful permanent resident who had fled civil war in Liberia and become a U.S. resident in 2016 was convicted twice under Michigan law for possessing a loaded firearm in a vehicle, and later for embezzlement. Following his most recent conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. At his removal hearing, his attorney conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied this relief, focusing solely on the discretionary factors, as eligibility was uncontested.The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that the IJ should have granted cancellation based on the equitable balance of factors. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Subsequently, represented by new counsel, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider and reopen, alleging ineffective assistance by prior counsel and challenging whether his Michigan firearm conviction qualified as a removable firearms offense under federal law. He included supporting documents for his ineffective assistance claim. The Department of Homeland Security also moved to reopen and dismiss the proceedings, citing changed circumstances. The BIA denied both motions, finding the petitioner had not complied with procedural requirements for ineffective assistance claims—specifically, he failed to provide evidence that notice and a bar complaint had been sent. The BIA also denied the government’s motion, noting it lacked explanation or supporting new facts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. It dismissed the petitioner’s first petition, holding that his arguments were either unexhausted or jurisdictionally barred. The court denied the second petition, finding the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying relief for ineffective assistance due to lack of procedural compliance, and also properly denied the government’s motion to reopen and dismiss for lack of supporting evidence. View "Morris v. Blanche" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a native of Guinea, entered the United States in 2015 after suffering severe abuse in her home country, including female genital mutilation and physical violence from an arranged marriage. She overstayed her nonimmigrant visa due to credible threats from her ex-husband if she returned. In 2022, she was charged as removable for overstaying her visa. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, but an immigration judge denied all relief. The judge found her asylum claim untimely, determined her abuse was not on account of a protected ground for withholding, and ruled she did not establish government acquiescence to torture.After the immigration judge’s denial in June 2024, the petitioner was promptly informed of her right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which required filing within 30 days. She sought new counsel but was hospitalized for several days due to a severe sickle-cell crisis and remained in pain for months. She did not attempt to appeal until she began feeling better in September 2024, eventually retaining new counsel in late October. The appeal was not filed until December 2024, over five months after the deadline. The BIA denied her motion for equitable tolling, concluding she failed to show extraordinary circumstances or due diligence, particularly because she offered insufficient medical documentation for her incapacity and delayed further even after retaining counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the 30-day deadline for appealing to the BIA is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar. The court further held that the BIA’s equitable tolling decision is subject to deferential review and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding a lack of due diligence. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Baro v. Blanche" on Justia Law

An individual who immigrated to the United States from Albania as a child and later became a lawful permanent resident was found removable due to convictions for a firearms offense and two crimes involving moral turpitude. His criminal history included larceny, attempted home invasion, driving-related offenses, and forgery. Despite these convictions, the Immigration Judge found that the hardships his removal would cause his family—particularly his ailing mother—outweighed the negative factors and granted cancellation of removal.Following this decision, the Department of Homeland Security appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board). The Board reversed the Immigration Judge, concluding that the individual's positive equities did not outweigh his substantial criminal record and vacated the grant of cancellation, ordering his removal to Albania. The individual then petitioned for review of the Board’s decision and separately sought reconsideration and reopening before the Board, arguing procedural and substantive errors regarding his removability. The Board denied his motion for reconsideration, citing waiver of removability challenges, lack of entitlement to relief under new legal authority, and absence of new material evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed both petitions. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, as the challenge was based on disagreement with the Board’s weighing of discretionary factors, not on legal or constitutional grounds. The court further held that the individual had waived his challenge to the removability finding by failing to appeal it and that the Board was not required to revisit that issue. The Sixth Circuit therefore denied both petitions for review. View "Dodaj v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Nigerian citizen entered the United States in 2002 on a business visa, which expired the following year. He remained in the country, married, later separated, and began living with a new partner, a U.S. citizen, with whom he has three children. The government initiated removal proceedings against him in 2010. He conceded removability but sought withholding of removal, alleging he would face danger in Nigeria due to his father’s kidnapping in 2004, and applied for cancellation of removal based on the potential hardship to his children if he were deported.An immigration judge denied both forms of relief. For withholding of removal, the judge found the petitioner credible but ruled that he failed to sufficiently corroborate his testimony about his father’s kidnapping, as he did not provide police, court records, or affidavits from family members that would support his claims. For cancellation of removal, the judge determined the petitioner had not shown that his removal would impose the required “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” on his children, noting that the children would remain in the U.S., are healthy, and that their mother works full-time as a nurse. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision on both grounds.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision, applying a highly deferential standard for factual findings. The court held that a reasonable factfinder could require corroborating evidence for the kidnapping claim and that the petitioner had adequate opportunity to explain its absence. Regarding cancellation of removal, the court found that the evidence did not compel a finding of the requisite hardship to the petitioner’s children. The court denied the petition for review, upholding the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the immigration judge. View "Nwosu v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A group of noncitizens from Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, who had lived in the United States for years without lawful status, were arrested by federal immigration authorities and detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) without being granted bond hearings. Most had only minor traffic offenses and many were parents to U.S.-citizen children. Their detention was based on the interpretation that, as “applicants for admission,” they were subject to mandatory detention without individualized assessment of flight risk or dangerousness.Each petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus in either the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan or the Western District of Michigan. They argued that they should have been detained, if at all, under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which allows for bond hearings, not under the mandatory detention provision. They also claimed that detention without a bond hearing violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The district courts agreed with the petitioners, holding that § 1226(a) governed their detention, requiring bond hearings, and that detention without such a hearing violated due process for those who had lived in the interior of the United States for years.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed these consolidated appeals. The court held that noncitizens present in the interior of the United States who have not affirmatively sought lawful entry are not “seeking admission” under § 1225(b)(2)(A) and therefore are not subject to mandatory detention without bond. Instead, their detention is governed by § 1226, which requires an individualized bond hearing. The court also affirmed that detaining such noncitizens without a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The court affirmed the district courts’ judgments granting habeas relief. View "Lopez-Campos v. Raycraft" on Justia Law

A man who was born in India entered the United States illegally and sought asylum, which was denied. He then submitted a second asylum application under a false identity and later married a U.S. citizen, using the same false information to obtain permanent residency and, eventually, naturalization as a U.S. citizen. After obtaining a U.S. passport and reentering the country, he was questioned by border agents and gave false answers regarding his identity. As a result, he was charged with using a fraudulently obtained passport and making false statements to federal agents. He pleaded guilty to the passport charge, with the other charge dismissed, and was sentenced to probation. Both his plea agreement and the district court informed him of potential immigration consequences, including possible loss of citizenship.Later, the government initiated denaturalization proceedings, alleging that he had illegally procured citizenship through fraud and misrepresentation. The man petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for a writ of coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not advise him that his guilty plea could lead to denaturalization. The district court denied the petition, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding he had not shown a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s advice, he would have chosen a different course. After a Second Circuit decision in Farhane v. United States adopted a broader view of counsel’s obligations, he sought reconsideration, which was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the appeal and held that the Sixth Amendment does not require defense attorneys to advise naturalized citizens that a guilty plea may carry the risk of denaturalization and eventual deportation. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion for reconsideration. View "United States v. Singh" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan national of indigenous Mayan Quiche descent entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and was placed in removal proceedings. He conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging persecution based on his indigenous identity. In a 2022 removal hearing, he testified regarding his experiences. The Immigration Judge found him credible but concluded he did not meet the legal standards for relief, ordering his removal to Guatemala.The petitioner timely appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. On February 10, 2025, the Board affirmed the removal order. The petitioner then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, but did so 79 days after the Board’s final order—well beyond the 30-day deadline set by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the government moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, arguing that the 30-day filing deadline was not subject to equitable tolling. The petitioner argued for equitable tolling, citing extraordinary circumstances and diligence. The Sixth Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. Bondi, the § 1252(b)(1) deadline is a claims-processing rule rather than jurisdictional, and is therefore subject to equitable tolling, following the interpretive framework from cases such as Holland v. Florida and Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner. However, the court concluded that the petitioner did not demonstrate the requisite diligence or extraordinary circumstances to merit equitable tolling in this case. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit dismissed the petition for review as untimely. View "Oxlaj-Perez v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Mauritanian national entered the United States without valid documents and was detained by federal immigration authorities. He admitted removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, claiming he had been enslaved and tortured in Mauritania. In his testimony before an immigration judge, he provided inconsistent accounts regarding his experiences and statements, including contradictions about where he lived, whether he had been arrested or tortured by police, and the fate of his family members. Different court-appointed interpreters assisted him during his hearings.The immigration judge found the petitioner not credible due to numerous inconsistencies and denied his applications for relief. The petitioner did not appeal the initial decision but later moved to reopen the proceedings, alleging that interpretation at one hearing was flawed because the interpreter had since been disqualified. He provided an affidavit expressing difficulty understanding the interpreter but did not specify any translation errors. The immigration judge denied the motion to reopen, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, noting the lack of objections at the hearing and absence of identified errors. The Board also rejected a request for sua sponte reopening, finding no exceptional situations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit considered the petition for review. It held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because the petitioner failed to identify material translation errors or evidence likely to change the outcome. The court also found no due process violation, noting the petitioner did not object during the hearing or show that the judge was aware of interpretation problems. Finally, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the claim regarding sua sponte reopening. The petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Deh v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan citizen who entered the United States unlawfully in 2000 was placed in removal proceedings after being arrested in connection with a criminal investigation. He conceded his removability but sought cancellation of removal under § 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that his deportation would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his two U.S.-citizen children. He and his wife, both of whom are the children’s sole providers, testified that if he were removed, the family would relocate to Guatemala, where the children would face significant financial, educational, and medical challenges.An Immigration Judge denied the application, finding that the children would not suffer hardship beyond what is typical for families facing deportation. The judge reasoned that the family had resources to transition to life in Guatemala, including the parents’ ability to work and certain assets that could assist their resettlement. The judge also noted that the children did not have unique medical or educational needs and that the hardships described—such as a lower standard of living and reduced educational opportunities—were not extraordinary. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision, and the petitioner then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, applying the substantial-evidence standard under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, held that the determination by the Board was conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. The court found that the hardships identified did not rise to the level of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” required for cancellation of removal and that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach a contrary conclusion. The petition for review was denied. View "Us v. Blanche" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan national entered the United States illegally as a minor and was charged with removability. He twice failed to appear at scheduled immigration hearings, resulting in an in absentia removal order, which was later rescinded after he successfully moved to reopen his case. He conceded his removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, citing threats and assaults from the Mara 18 gang due to his refusal to join, harm to his sister allegedly in retaliation, and his Mayan ethnicity. He also claimed the Guatemalan authorities would not protect him due to discrimination against Mayans.The Immigration Judge (IJ) found his testimony credible but identified inconsistencies in his statements and supporting evidence. The IJ held that the four social groups he identified—various groupings of young men, indigenous men, those lacking police protection, and his family—were either too broad or not sufficiently particular to be recognized under Guatemalan society as required for asylum or withholding of removal. The IJ further found that he was targeted by the gang for recruitment, not because of group membership, and that his experiences did not rise to the level of persecution. The IJ also denied his claim under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding that he had waived his CAT claim.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied his petition. The court held that he had forfeited arguments concerning the social groups he identified before the agency and failed to exhaust new social group arguments presented in his petition. Without establishing membership in a particular social group, his asylum and withholding of removal claims could not succeed. The court also found his remaining challenges either unexhausted or meritless. View "Gamas-Vicente v. Blanche" on Justia Law