Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

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 All the charges were withdrawn after Filipova and Coskun refused to testify.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

Petitioner is a native citizen of Mexico who received lawful permanent resident status in the United States in 2003. In 2014, Petitioner was convicted by way of a guilty plea of an Aggravated Robbery in Texas. Petitioner was then deemed removable by an Immigration Judge ("IJ"). The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed, finding that Petitioner had been convicted of an "aggravated felony."The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), an “alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” Section 1101(a)(43) of title 8 provides a list of offenses that qualify as aggravated felonies, which includes felony theft crimes, felony crimes of violence and attempts to commit these offenses. Petitioner argued that “since the Texas definition of a robbery encompasses an attempt to commit theft, it cannot categorically be defined as a theft offense, as an actual taking or exercise of control over the property of another is not needed for purposes of a conviction.However, the court held that, for Petitioner's purposes, it didn't matter if he was convicted of attempted theft or aggravated theft. The court explained that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum because his conviction qualifies as a non-political felony crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 16(a). View "Rodriguez Gonzalez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Petitioner admitted the factual allegations and conceded the charge of removability. Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied his application for all claims. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA dismissed the appeal. Petitioner petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit, and he only preserved his cancellation of removal claim.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review either decision. The court explained that Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement applies to claims alleging defects in the BIA proceedings that the BIA “never had a chance to consider” because they arise “only as a consequence of the Board’s error.” Moreover, “when a petitioner seeks to raise a claim not presented to the BIA and the claim is one that the BIA has adequate mechanisms to address and remedy, the petitioner must raise the issue in a motion to reopen prior to resorting to review by the courts.” Here, Petitioner failed to meet these requirements. He never presented his ultra vires claim to the BIA, even though he could have raised it in his motion to reconsider. Moreover, Petitioner seeks the exact relief the BIA could’ve awarded him on reconsideration—namely, a new decision by a board member serving an unexpired term. View "Ayala Chapa v. Garland" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of felonious assault on a peace officer under section 2903.13(A) of the Ohio Revised Code and misdemeanor resisting arrest. While Defendant was in prison, he was served with a “Notice of Intent to Issue a Final Administrative Removal Order.” The notice alleged that Defendant was a Mexican citizen in the country illegally who had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was thus removable. The notice alleged that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence under the INA. Defendant was once again arrested and charged with illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his section 2903.13(A) assault conviction was not an aggravated felony. The district court denied Defendant’s motion.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel disagreed with Defendant’s contention that knowledge is not sufficient for “attempted use” because common law attempt requires specific intent. Defendant also argued that his prior offense is not a crime of violence because section 2903.13(A) does not require “violent” physical force but can be violated by offensive or de minimis contact. The panel explained that the text of section 2903.13(A) only criminalizes force capable of causing physical pain or injury and held that the type of conduct to which section 2903.13(A) has been applied by Ohio courts is force capable of causing physical pain or injury. The panel, therefore, concluded that section 2903.13(a) is a crime of violence under Section 16(a), it thus qualifies as an aggravated felony under Section 1101(a)(43)(F), and Defendant’s removal order was not fundamentally unfair. View "USA V. JACINTO ALVAREZ" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal affirming the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to vacate his conviction, holding that holding that the court of appeals erred in ruling that Defendant failed adequately to corroborate his claim that immigration consequences were a paramount concern and thus that Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice within the meaning of Cal. Penal Code 1473.7.In 2004, Defendant, a native of Mexico, accepted a plea bargain and served one year in jail. In 2015, Defendant was detained by federal immigration authorities after a return flight to the United States, and his permanent residence card was seized. In his his third motion to vacate his conviction, Defendant argued that he had not been aware of the immigration consequences of his plea and that, had he been aware, he would have sought a plea with lesser consequences or gone to trial. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, there was a reasonable probability that Defendant would have rejected the plea had he understood its immigration consequences. View "People v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Cruz‐Velasco entered the U.S. without inspection in 1999. He has remained continuously present, raising his American‐born sons as a single father after the death of his partner. In 2014, Cruz‐Velasco was convicted of reckless driving, endangering safety, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, with his nine‐ and 11‐year‐old sons in the car. In subsequent removal proceedings, Cruz‐Velasco sought cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). While in removal proceedings, Cruz‐Velasco was convicted again with DUI and sentenced to serve another 10 days in jail. Cruz‐Velasco stopped drinking after his 2016 arrest and completed a court‐ordered substance abuse program.The IJ held that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal, having failed to establish that his sons would suffer hardship beyond what is predictable as a result of a parent’s removal and because his DUI convictions demonstrated a lack of good moral character. While his BIA appeal was pending, the Attorney General ruled that two or more DUI convictions in the relevant period raise a presumption that a noncitizen lacks good moral character, which cannot be overcome solely by showing rehabilitation. The BIA affirmed the removal order Amid the 2020 COVID‐19 pandemic, Cruz‐Velasco sought to reopen his application, submitting new evidence that he had been diagnosed with diabetes and that this condition increased his risk of dying from COVID‐19 in Mexico. The BIA denied Cruz‐Velasco’s motion, without specifically addressing arguments concerning his diabetes. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Cruz-Velasco v. Garland" on Justia Law