Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, an Iraqi citizen, was convicted of attempting to procure naturalization unlawfully and of presenting a naturalization application with false statements. Both convictions were predicated on Defendant’s answers to two questions on his naturalization application, in which he asserted that he had never given false information to a U.S. Government official and that he had never lied to such an official to gain an immigration benefit.   On appeal, Defendant argued that the Government presented insufficient evidence to establish that any false statements he made during the asylum process were material to his subsequent naturalization application and that his motion for judgment of acquittal on both counts should have been granted.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed Defendant’s conviction for attempting to procure naturalization unlawfully and presenting a naturalization application with false statements. The panel concluded that ample evidence supports the Government’s reliance on the “investigation-based theory” of materiality. The panel concluded that a rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a reasonable immigration judge apprised of the facts about Defendant’s presence in Germany would have found Defendant not to be credible, and would have denied asylum, on the ground that the claimed persecution in 2008 was fabricated and that Defendant thus had not established that he had suffered past persecution. Further, the panel concluded that the Government presented sufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to conclude on this basis that Defendant would have been ineligible for asylum and that his false statements on his later naturalization application were, therefore material to the naturalization decision under an “investigation-based theory.” View "USA V. SEVAN AMINTOBIA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native of El Salvador, was detained by immigration authorities. An immigration judge (IJ) denied bond, and an IJ later denied him relief under the Convention Against Torture and ordered his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and this court denied his petition for review. In April 2021, Plaintiff moved the BIA to reopen, and the BIA denied a stay of removal. In May 2021, Plaintiff filed a habeas petition with the district court, which denied his motion to enjoin his removal until his motion to reopen and habeas petition were decided. On June 14, 2021, the district court denied Plaintiff subsequently-filed motion for a TRO, and the government voluntarily agreed to stay removal up to and including August 13, 2021.   The Ninth Circuit filed: 1) an order amending the opinion filed August 13, 2021; and 2) an amended opinion affirming the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the government from removing him. The panel concluded that the district court correctly determined that jurisdiction was barred by 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(g), which provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien.” The panel rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the Constitution’s Suspension Clause preserves judicial review here. View "WILLIAN RAUDA V. DAVID JENNINGS, ET AL" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for illegally reentering the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictment on equal protection grounds. After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and three years supervised release. On appeal, Defendant argues that Section 1326 violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection principles. As for his sentence, he asserts that the district court (1) failed to consider sentencing disparities, (2) improperly considered the timing of an appeal in sentencing him to three years of supervised release, and (3) failed to consider the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy on supervised release for deportable defendants.   The Fifth Circuit agreed that the district court abused its discretion by considering the appeal clock in determining the appropriate term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court vacated that part of Defendant’s sentence and remanded for reconsideration of the supervised-release term. The court otherwise affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence. The court found that the district court imposed three years of supervised release solely out of fear that a lower sentence would moot an appeal. The timing of an appeal is not a factor that courts are tasked with considering in imposing supervised release. Such a consideration is also irrelevant because Defendant could appeal his conviction even after his sentence ends. The district court abused its discretion by basing the term of supervised release on the irrelevant timing for an appeal. View "USA v. Barcenas-Rumualdo" on Justia Law

Baghdad, a Moroccan citizen, has lived in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident for two decades. In 2018, he and two accomplices ran out of a Pennsylvania store with three drills (worth about $1000) and sold them at a pawn shop. He pleaded guilty to retail theft and faced nearly two years’ incarceration. The government argued that his conviction was for an aggravated felony, making him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The term “aggravated felony” includes theft convictions that result in prison sentences of at least one year. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that the retail theft conviction constituted an aggravated felonyThe Third Circuit denied Baghdad’s petition for review, applying the categorical approach. Baghdad was convicted of a crime that shares all three elements with generic theft and his sentence was for more than one year. While Pennsylvania juries may infer that a defendant who concealed merchandise intended to steal it, that inference is permissive, not mandatory. It depends on facts from which the jury could infer intent to steal beyond a reasonable doubt and it does not shift the burden of proof. Baghdad’s conviction makes him removable. View "Baghdad v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

De Castro, a citizen of the Dominican Republic came to the U.S. around 2002-2003. In 2012, he married a U.S. citizen. In 2014, his spouse’s Petition for Alien Relative was approved. The State Department notified De Castro that his immigrant visa petition was eligible for further processing. Months later, he was arrested as an alien in possession of a weapon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A). De Castro eventually pleaded guilty and was allowed to depart voluntarily in 2017. Thirteen months after the Supreme Court’s 2019 “Rehaif” decision, De Castro sought a writ of error coram nobis challenging his conviction. In Rehaif, the Supreme Court held that section 922(g)'s “knowingly” provision applies to both the possession and immigration status elements. De Castro argued that the government never proved he knew he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States; the court never informed him at his plea colloquy that the government was required to prove that element.The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of the petition, finding that De Castro did not have a sound reason for his delay in seeking relief; his knowledge-of-immigration-status argument was not futile in 2017 when he entered his plea agreement; and De Castro cannot establish actual innocence under the Rehaif standard because he cannot demonstrate it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would conclude that he knew of his status as an illegal alien at the time he possessed a firearm. View "United States v. De Castro" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7, subdivision (a). The Legislature has declared that section 1473.7, as amended by Assembly Bill No. 2867, “shall be interpreted in the interests of justice and consistent with the findings and declarations made in Section 1016.2 of the Penal Code.” (Stats 2018, ch. 825, Section 1, subd. (c).)   As a result, the Second Appellate District reversed the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7. The court remanded to the superior court with directions to grant the motion and vacate the conviction. The court concluded that Appellant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that if he had been properly advised of the immigration consequences of his plea, he would not have pleaded no contest to an offense that would subject him to mandatory deportation from the United States. Accordingly, the court wrote, that Appellant has carried his burden of establishing prejudicial error and is entitled to relief. View "P. v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for habeas relief after being in immigration detention for over a year without a bond hearing. During her initial removal proceedings, she was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) (“Subsection C”) due to a conviction. Thus, she was not statutorily entitled to a bond hearing. However, in Casas Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, the Ninth Circuit held that once a noncitizen’s immigration case reaches judicial review, the authority for holding a Subsection C detainee shifts to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) (“Subsection A”), which does entitle a noncitizen to a bond hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner argued she was entitled to a bond hearing.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of habeas relief and held that a noncitizen of the United States—who initially was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c)—is not entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) while awaiting a decision from this court on a petition for review.   Here, the panel observed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings does not directly address the question in Casas Castrillon—when, if ever, mandatory detention under Subsection C ends. However, the panel explained that Jennings’s reasoning makes clear that Subsection A and Subsection C apply to discrete categories of noncitizens, and not to different stages of a noncitizen’s legal proceedings. The district court declined to reach Petitioner’s alternative argument that she was entitled to habeas relief as a matter of due process. The panel remanded to the district court to consider this question. View "LEXIS HERNANDEZ AVILEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, ET AL" on Justia Law

Defendant a Mexican citizen who migrated to the United States illegally as a minor in 2006, was deported in 2011 following a four-minute removal hearing. During that hearing, the immigration judge neglected to advise Defendant about his eligibility for voluntary departure or inform him of his right to appeal. Then, in his written summary order, the immigration judge indicated that Defendant had waived his right to appeal. Upon discovering him in the country once again in 2018, the Government opted to arrest and charge him with illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing that the 2011 deportation order underlying his Section 1326 charge was invalid.   The district court agreed, finding that the immigration judge’s failure to advise Defendant regarding his eligibility for voluntary departure rendered his 2011 removal fundamentally unfair. Defendant nevertheless maintains that the district court’s decision must be affirmed on an alternative basis: that the immigration judge’s denial of his right to appeal also prejudiced him. The Fourth Circuit agreed and affirmed the dismissal of Defendant’s indictment.   The court concluded that Defendant would have been granted voluntary departure on remand. The court rejected the Government’s contentions that Defendant would not have been eligible for voluntary departure. Further, the Government has waived any other arguments against that eligibility by failing to raise them before the court. Ultimately the court agreed with Defendant that, but for the denial of his appeal rights, he would not have been deported. Accordingly, the court concluded that his 2011 removal hearing was fundamentally unfair. View "US v. Bonifacio Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this immigration case to the Boards of Immigration Appeals (BIA) after it affirmed an immigration judge's (IJ) decision to deny Petitioner's applications for relief from removal based on two marijuana offenses found by the IJ and the BIA to be "particularly serious" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii), holding that remand was required.The IJ found Petitioner removable based on two Massachusetts state court convictions involving marijuana. The BIA upheld the IJ's determination that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal for having been convicted of a particularly serious crime. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that there was not a sufficient rational explanation to explain the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner's minor marijuana offenses were particularly serious crimes and that remand was required. View "Dor v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant Andrew Gregor, a naturalized citizen from Australia, pleaded guilty to a felony sex offense that was later reduced to a misdemeanor and dismissed after early termination of probation. After he was informed he was not able to sponsor his father for a family visa due to this conviction, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1473.7 and sought to withdraw his plea claiming he was unable to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the adverse immigration consequences of his conviction. The trial court denied the motion; defendant appealed. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "California v. Gregor" on Justia Law