Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Government removed Appellant from the United States. Back in his home country, Appellant filed a habeas petition, arguing that his removal was unlawful. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition. It concluded that habeas proceedings are available only to those in government custody. Because Appellant did not file his petition until he was back home and out of custody, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear his case. Appellant appealed to the DC Circuit.   The DC Circuit affirmed. The court explained that an alien may seek judicial review of an expedited removal order in “habeas corpus proceedings.” And habeas corpus proceedings are available only to those in custody. Here, Appellant was not in custody. So the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his habeas petition. Further, the court noted that it cannot adopt an extreme-circumstances exception because it has no statutory basis. The court wrote that creating exceptions to jurisdictional rules is a job for Congress, not the courts. View "I.M. v. United States Customs and Border Protection" on Justia Law

Banuelos-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, arrived in the U.S. in 1999. DHS began removal proceedings in 2010. Those proceedings were administratively closed and re-calendared at the Department’s request. In 2017, Arkansas police arrested Banuelos-Jimenez following a “screaming” incident with his wife. He pleaded guilty to, third-degree assault on a family or household member. DHS re-initiated removal proceedings.Banuelos-Jimenez applied for cancellation of removal. An IJ denied his application, concluding that the Arkansas statute was a crime of violence: Banuelos-Jimenez acted at least recklessly and that “crimes of violence” encompass not only crimes that require specific intent but also reckless conduct. The BIA affirmed. Despite the Supreme Court’s 2021 “Borden” holding that a crime of violence does not encompass reckless conduct, the BIA concluded that Banuelos-Jimenez’s conviction was a crime of violence—his conduct was also purposeful and necessarily involved a threat of force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The Arkansas conviction is categorically a crime of violence because it involves the “threatened use of force against the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. 16(a). While the statute may not require the perpetrator to intend actual harm, he still intends to threaten harm. View "Banuelos-Jimenez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Caldera-Torres, a citizen of Mexico in the U.S. without permission, sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4), 1229b(b)(1). To be eligible for that relief an alien must show that he has not been convicted of a crime of domestic violence. Caldera-Torres has a Wisconsin conviction for battery, arising from an attack on the mother of his daughter. An IJ and the BIA concluded that this conviction makes Caldera-Torres ineligible.The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting Caldera-Torres’s argument that, although Wis. Stat. 940.19(1) qualifies as a federal “crime of violence,” it is not a crime of domestic violence, because the victim’s identity is not an element of the offense. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) does not say or imply that the “protected person” aspect of the definition must be an element of the crime. It is enough that the victim’s status as a “protected person” be established. A “crime of domestic violence” is a generic “crime of violence” plus the victim’s status as a “protected person.” All other circuits that have addressed section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) recently have held that the victim’s status as a “protected person” need not be an element of the crime of conviction. It is irrelevant how Wisconsin classified Caldera-Torres’s conviction for its own purposes. View "Caldera-Torres v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Castro Balza v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Gomez Barco v. Witte" on Justia Law

Doyduk came to the U.S. from Turkey on a visa that expired in 2010. Still in the country a year later, he participated in a night of heavy drinking with his then-girlfriend Filipova (also in the country without authorization). Filipova was stabbed in the stomach, suffering a serious injury. Doyduk’s boss, Coskun, called 911. Doyduk was charged with aggravated assault, possessing an instrument of crime, possessing a prohibited offensive weapon, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person. All the charges were withdrawn after Filipova and Coskun refused to testify. The charging documents were discarded under a Pennsylvania law that requires expungement after 18 months pass without action.In 2011 removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(C)(i) for having overstayed his visa, Doyduk sought an adjustment of status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. At a 2017 hearing, the officer who arrested Doyduk testified about the stabbing. The IJ also considered the Philadelphia police report and heard testimony from Doyduk, his citizen-wife, and others attesting to Doyduk’s character. The IJ denied relief, finding that the evidence strongly suggested that Doyduk committed the crime. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows IJs to consider facts underlying expunged charges. View "Doyduk v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted under Wash. Rev. Code Section 9A.56.190 and served a fifteen-month prison sentence. The BIA concluded that he was removable for having committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G), which describes “a theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.”   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision that he was removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony theft offense under 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G). A plurality of the court concluded that it was necessary to consider Washington's accomplice liability in conducting the categorical analysis of Washington robbery. The plurality explained that, in Valdivia-Flores, the court relied on Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), in which the Supreme Court concluded that generic theft encompasses aiding and abetting. Because Petitioner’s conviction did not establish that he acted as a principal, the plurality concluded that it must consider the possibility he acted as an accomplice. Having held that second-degree robbery under Wash. Rev. Code Section  9A.56.190 is a categorical match with generic theft, the en banc court concluded that Petitioner had been convicted of an aggravated felony and denied his petition for review. View "MCKENZY ALFRED V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born in the former Soviet Union in what is now Armenia. He entered the United States with his family in 1992 at age seven, becoming a lawful permanent resident in 1994. Petitioner and several others were charged in a 20-count indictment in district court and the Department of Homeland Security sought Petitioner’s removal. An Immigration Judge (IJ) found that Petitioner’s conspiracy conviction rendered him removable and that he was not entitled to relief from removal. The IJ thus ordered that Petitioner be removed to Armenia. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed in part and denied in part Petitioner’s petition for review. The panel held that: (1) in evaluating whether the government has satisfied the “exceed[ing] $10,000” requirement, the relevant loss amount for a conspiracy conviction is the loss associated with the conspiracy; and (2) the agreed-upon sentencing enhancement in Petitioner’s plea agreement was sufficient to prove that his offense of conviction involved more than $10,000 in losses. The panel held that under Section 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), the loss tied to a conspiracy conviction is the loss associated with the scheme that forms the basis for the conviction. The panel explained that when an alien has been convicted of a conspiracy to commit a qualifying crime of “fraud or deceit,” the government need not ascribe to the alien coconspirator some individual portion of the overall conspiracy-related loss to demonstrate that the loss threshold has been satisfied. The panel also concluded that the government had met its burden of proving that the conspiracy to which Petitioner pleaded guilty involved more than $10,000 in losses. View "ARMAN KHALULYAN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Defendant, a criminal noncitizen with a burglary conviction and two subsequent illegal-reentry convictions, was convicted of illegal reentry for a third time. The district court characterized his burglary conviction as an aggravated felony. The district court also characterized his two prior illegal-reentry convictions as aggravated felonies under a statutory provision stating that illegal reentry is itself an aggravated felony when committed by someone previously deported following an aggravated felony conviction. The designation “aggravated felony” is significant because it subjects the alien to a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court mischaracterized his past offenses because, under an intervening Supreme Court case, his predicate burglary conviction no longer qualifies as an aggravated felony. He insists the district court erred in sentencing him under Section 1326(b)(2).   The Fifth Circuit reformed the judgment to reflect that Defendant was convicted and sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2) and affirmed the judgment as reformed. The court explained that Defendant was correctly sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2) because he was previously removed “subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” Defendant’s first illegal reentry, for which he was sentenced under Section 1326(b)(2), was an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(O). View "USA v. Huerta-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant entered the United Stated without authorization in 2004. He was then convicted of malicious wounding in Virginia and was deported back to El Salvador. Defendant later re-entered the United States before being convicted of another crime in 2020. He was indicted for illegal entry. moved to dismiss that indictment, arguing that the five year statute of limitations on his prosecution had run and that his crime of malicious wounding was not a deportable offense. The district court rejected Defendant's claims.On appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's collateral attack of his removal order, finding that Defendant entered the United States without authorization, committed a deportable offense, re-entered again illegally, and then committed another crime. The court explained that Defendant's "case falls right at the heart of what Congress sought to criminalize and the executive branch seeks to stop with the illegal reentry statute of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326." View "US v. Omar Alas" on Justia Law