recent Immigration Law Precedents: Case Briefs and Analysis

In Corpeno-Romero v. Garland, 23-576 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit reviewed an asylum claim by Corpeno-Romero and her son, who fled El Salvador after gang violence targeted their family. The court partly granted and partly denied the petition, remanding it to the BIA for further review on the adequacy of protection grounds.

Nguyen v. Jaddou, No. 23-20597 (5th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024), available at Justia.

In Nguyen v. Jaddou, the Fifth Circuit ruled that Nguyen could not benefit from the job portability provisions of AC21 after the revocation of his I-140 petition under the EB-3 visa category. The court emphasized that the petition must be valid for portability to apply and reaffirmed USCIS's discretionary authority in revoking petitions, limiting judicial review of such decisions. 

In Singh v. Garland, No. 20-70050 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied Varinder Singh’s motion to reopen his removal case. Singh, who had been ordered removed in absentia after missing a rescheduled hearing, argued that "exceptional circumstances"—including his reliance on incorrect advice from his attorney—justified reopening the case. The court found that the BIA failed to consider the totality of circumstances, including the merits of Singh’s asylum claim and the significant rescheduling of his hearing. The case was remanded for further consideration.

In Babaria v. Blinken, No. 22-16700 (9th Cir. 2023), the plaintiffs, Indian nationals lawfully residing in the U.S., sought adjustment of status after waiting over a decade for employment-based immigrant visas. Their applications were delayed due to visa retrogression when the State Department revised its forecast of visa availability. The plaintiffs challenged the regulation (8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(5)(ii)) requiring visa availability at both filing and approval, arguing it violated 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). The Ninth Circuit upheld the regulation, ruling that it reasonably filled a procedural gap left by Congress, affirming the district court's denial of injunctive relief.

In United States v. Munoz, No. 22-11574 (11th Cir. 2024), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the denaturalization of Melchor Munoz, who was stripped of his U.S. citizenship after being convicted of drug trafficking. The court ruled that neither collateral estoppel nor judicial estoppel prevented Munoz from contesting the timeline of his involvement in the conspiracy, as these issues were not essential to his prior conviction. This case underscores the importance of factual clarity in denaturalization proceedings and sets a precedent for how estoppel doctrines are applied in such cases.