• Rodriguez-Arias v. Whitaker

    Holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals made a legal error when it denied Petitioner CAT relief because it (1) failed to aggregate his risk of torture from all three of the entities that Petitioner fears and determine whether that sum exceeded 50%; and (3) wholesale failure to fully consider country-conditions evidence constitutes reversible error.

    Type: Fear-based, Procedural

    Holding that the the immigration judge's adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence; the immigration judge did not err by improperly discounting the Petitioner's corroborating evidence when denying his application for asylum; the immigration judge did not err, on remand, by conducting an additional hearing and taking oral testimony before denying Petitioner's application for asylum; and the immigration judge's determination that the Petitioner did not demonstrate a likelihood that he would be tortured if returned to Bangladesh was supported by substantial evidence.

    Type: Fear-based
  • Hercules-Torres v. Whitaker

    Holding that, where the immigration judge made an explicit finding that the persecutor's motive was not on account of a protected ground, the issue of persecutor’s motive is a factual finding that controls the one central reason inquiry for the nexus element under a clear error standard at the BIA that does not authorize de novo review at the circuit court; Declining to review and leaving open whether the BIA precedent in Matter of C-T-L-, 25 I&N Dec. 341 (BIA 2010) (extending the “one central reason” standard applicable to asylum claims to claims for withholding of removal) is legally flawed because the argument was foreclosed by the immigration judge's factual finding on the persecutor's motive; Declining to review denial of relief under the Convention against Torture because the BIA applied the correct clear error standard of review to the likelihood of torture because it is a fact-based determination, and the BIA's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

    Type: Fear-based, Procedural
  • Tairou v. Whitaker

    Holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in finding that Petitioner was not subjected to past persecution where binding precedent explicitly holds that a threat of death constitutes persecution.

    Type: Fear-based, Procedural
  • Sanmartin Prado v. Whitaker

    Upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals’s finding that second degree child abuse pursuant to Md. Code. Ann., Crim. Law Sec. 3-601(a)(2), (d) is categorically a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment under 8. U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).

    Type: Criminal-Immigration Consequences
  • Cruz-Quintanilla v. Whitaker

    Holding that (1) whether the Petitioner established that the government would acquiesce in his torture under CAT is a mixed question of law and fact that falls outside of the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction and (2) the immigration judge’s determination that the evidence did not meet the relevant standard of review to establish likelihood of government acquiescence is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review, not clear error, by the BIA, and remanding to the Board for application of the proper legal standard.

    Type: Fear-based, Procedural
  • Leyva Martinez v. Sessions

    Holding Maryland § 7-104 consolidated theft is not a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) because it punishes de minimis, or minor, takings and is indivisible. 

    Type: Criminal-Immigration Consequences

    Holding that the imposition of $100 in court costs, assessed attendant to a prayer for judgment continued under North Carolina law, does not qualify as penalty or punishment to constitute a “conviction” within the meaning of the Immigration and Naturalization Act under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; id. § 1101(a)(48)(A). The Court, therefore, held that the Petitioner is not statutorily barred from the relief from removal of cancellation of removal as a nonpermanent resident for the offense in question because it is not a conviction under immigration law. 

    Type: Criminal-Immigration Consequences, Relief Eligibility

    Holding that the the Petitioner abandoned her status as a lawful permanent resident and that the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in determining that reopening the case was not warranted.

    Type: Procedural

    Holding that substantial evidence did not support the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that the government had established a fundamental change in circumstances, as necessary to rebut the Petitioner's well-founded fear of persecution, and that the Board erred in denying the Petitioner's applications on the ground that the Petitioner could avoid future persecution through internal relocation.

    Type: Fear-based