Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c), which provides for mandatory detention of noncitizens with certain criminal convictions. After Petitioner filed a habeas petition, the district court ordered that he receive a bond hearing, reasoning that his prolonged mandatory detention violated due process. An IJ denied bond, and the BIA affirmed. The district court asserted jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims but denied habeas relief.   Affirming in part and vacating in part the Ninth Circuit held that: 1) federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination of whether a particular noncitizen poses a danger to the community such that he is not entitled to bond; and 2) the district court correctly denied Petitioner’s claims that the BIA erred or violated due process in denying bond.   The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that Petitioner posed a danger to the community, concluding that dangerousness is a discretionary determination covered by the judicial review bar of 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(e). In concluding that the dangerousness determination is discretionary, the court observed that the only guidance as to what it means to be a “danger to the community” is an agency-created multifactorial analysis with no clear, uniform standard for what crosses the line into dangerousness. As to Petitioner’s remaining claims, the court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to review them as constitutional claims or questions of law not covered by Section1226(e), but agreed with the district court that they must be denied. View "JAVIER MARTINEZ V. LOWELL CLARK" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony counts of sale/transportation/offer to sell a controlled substance (count 1) and possession for sale of a controlled substance (count 2). He pled guilty to count 1, offer to sell oxycodone in exchange for 36 months of formal probation with the service of 180 days in county jail. Count 2 was dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. Defendant’s attorney and the trial court advised him at that time that he would be deported based on his negotiated plea. Seven years later he found himself the subject of deportation proceedings.   The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction. The trial court factually found Defendant's credibility to be “severely lacking,” and his declaration was “deceptively phrased” to mislead the court that counsel had not recommended Defendant meet with an immigration attorney when counsel had, in fact, consulted with Defendant's immigration attorney.   The Second Appellate District affirmed and found that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion. The court explained that the plain and unambiguous language contained in the Felony Disposition Statement states: “If I am not a citizen and am pleading guilty to . . . a controlled substance offense, . . . I will be deported.”  The court explained that even on independent review, Defendant’s contentions fail. At the time of the plea proceeding, Defendant had lived in the United States for approximately seven years with his family. The contemplation of his life in Mexico, contemporaneous with his guilty plea, is persuasive evidence Defendant knew he would be deported. View "P. v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Defendant was sentenced to 36 months in prison to be followed by five years of supervised release after pleading guilty to illegal reentry. As a special condition of release, the district court required that Defendant be turned over to immigration authorities upon his release and that he be deported to Mexico. If immigration authorities were unwilling to take Defendant, the court required he self-deport.Defendant challenged the special condition of release requiring he self-deport. The government conceded that the district court committed plain error. The Fifth Circuit remanded for entry of a new written judgment without the special condition requiring Defendant to depart the United States. View "USA v. Badillo" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in Texas state court of the felony offense of injury to a child, in violation of Texas Penal Code Section 22.04(a)(3). The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served Petitioner with a Notice to Appear (NTA), charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), as an alien who, at any time after admission, was convicted of a crime of child abuse. After a hearing, the IJ denied Petitioner’s request for cancellation of removal, ordered him removed, and denied his request for voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, denied his requests for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure, and ordered his removal. Petitioner then submitted a petition for review to the Fifth Circuit.   The Fifth Circuit denied in part Petitioner’s petition. Petitioner’s motion to terminate “squarely presented” the issue of the statute’s divisibility. Thus, the court held that the BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioner’s claim that the IJ impermissibly ruled on the divisibility issue. Further, based on Section 22.04(a)’s text, relevant state court cases, Texas’ pattern jury instructions, and the record of prior conviction itself, the court held that Section 22.04(a) is divisible as to victim class. Because the statute is divisible, the court applied the modified categorical approach to see which offense, under Section 22.04(a), is the crime of conviction. In so doing, the court looked to Petitioner’s indictment and the judicial confession entered on his guilty plea. Reviewing those documents, it is apparent that Petitioner was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, causing bodily injury to a child. View "Monsonyem v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1349. He was sentenced to one year and one day of imprisonment and ordered to pay $229,717.30 in restitution.   The government served Petitioner with a notice to appear, charging him with removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Specifically, the government invoked Section 1101(a)(43)(M) & (U), alleging that Petitioner was convicted of “an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000,” and “an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act.” Petitioner applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).   Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA found no error in the IJ’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition in part and dismissed in part.   The court explained Pursuant to Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.” Section 1101(a)(43)(M) defines an “aggravated felony” as “an offense that—(i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000,” and § 1101(a)(43)(U) extends the definition of “aggravated felony” to “an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense described in this paragraph.” Here, Petitioner’s order of restitution for $229,717.30—which reflects the amount owed within the judgment for his fraud conspiracy conviction— provides clear and convincing evidence of the losses to his victims. View "Osei Fosu v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of forgery under Section 472 for possession of a counterfeit government seal. The Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that this conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude that made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Petitioner argued that intent to defraud is not a required element under Section 472, and therefore, his forgery conviction was not a categorical crime involving moral turpitude.   The Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the court held that a forgery under California Penal Code Section 472 is a crime involving moral turpitude.   The court considered the elements of Section 472 and concluded that California law does not support Petitioner’s reading of the statute. The court explained that it is reasonable to read the statutory text as requiring that all the prohibited acts be done “with the intent to defraud another,” and that no California court has held that Section 472 has separate clauses or that the intent-to-defraud element is limited to specific clauses or actions. The court also explained that California caselaw establishes that forgery requires intent to defraud and that California’s pattern jury instructions confirm that conclusion.   Finally, Petitioner contended that his argument to the BIA that his conviction did not render him inadmissible was sufficient to alert the BIA to the relevance of the petty offense exception. The court concluded that the record belied that assertion, noting that the BIA did not read Petitioner’s brief as raising that assertion. View "PEDRO VASQUEZ-BORJAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a class action filed under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 by individuals who were incarcerated in private immigration detention facilities owned and operated by a for-profit corporation, CoreCivic, Inc. These individuals were detained solely due to their immigration status alleged that the overseers of their private detention facilities forced them to perform labor against their will and without compensation. The inquiry on appeal concerns only whether the district court properly certified three classes of detainees.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order certifying three classes in an action. The court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in certifying a California Labor Law Class, a California Forced Labor Class, and a National Forced Labor Class. The court held that, as to the California Forced Labor Class, Plaintiffs submitted sufficient proof of a class-wide policy of forced labor to establish commonality. Plaintiff established predominance because the claims of the class members all depended on common questions of law and fact. The court agreed with the district court that narrowing the California Forced Labor Class based on the California TVPA’s statute of limitations was not required at the class certification stage.   The court held that, as to the National Forced Labor Class, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Plaintiffs presented significant proof of a class-wide policy of forced labor. As to the California Labor Law Class, the court held that Plaintiffs established that damages were capable of measurement on a class-wide basis. View "SYLVESTER OWINO V. CORECIVIC, INC." on Justia Law

A certificate of appealability to the Fifth Circuit was granted on two issues: 1.) Was Defendant’s sentence enhanced under the unconstitutional residual clause found in 18 U.S.C. Section 16(b)? and 2.) Is Defendant entitled to collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255? The Fifth Circuit held that Defendant’s Section 2255 motion is not barred by AEDPA’s res judicata provision and the motion was properly authorized under Section  2255(h)(2). The court reasoned that the court denied Defendant’s request for authorization to file his motion. That means he never actually filed the underlying motion. And it also means that AEDPA’s absolute bar on previously presented claims is inapplicable. Further, the court held that Section  2255(h)(2) requires the court to conclude that Defendant’s underlying claim relies on “[1] a new rule of constitutional law, [2] made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that [3] was previously unavailable.” Turning to the merits question, the court held that Defendant’s Section 2255 motion is timely. The court next found that Defendant procedurally defaulted his void-for-vagueness claim. And he cannot excuse that default because he cannot show either (A) cause and prejudice or (B) actual innocence. Thus, the court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment because Defendant failed to preserve his void-for-vagueness claim. And there’s no persuasive reason to excuse that default. View "USA v. Vargas-Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(5)(A), which makes it unlawful for aliens illegally in the country to possess firearms. But he insisted the district court erred at sentencing by applying Section 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which imposes an elevated base offense level if the offense involved a “semiautomatic firearm that is capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine.” Defendant further contended that the United States failed to prove that (1) the firearm and magazine were compatible, and (2) the firearm could fire multiple rounds without reloading.The Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling and remanded for resentencing. The court reasoned that the “compatibility” requirement comes straight from the text of the Guidelines: a firearm must be capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. Here, the United States introduced zero evidence (let alone a preponderance) proving that the large-capacity magazine was compatible with Defendant’s firearm. Next, the court rejected the district court’s invitation to rely on proximity as a cure-all. The court reasoned that though it is true the Guidelines’ commentary states that an elevated base offense level comes into play under Section 2K2.1 when a large-capacity magazine is either “attached” or “in close proximity” to a qualifying firearm, both derive from the Guidelines’ unambiguous requirement that the firearm be capable of accepting the magazine. View "USA v. Luna-Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawfully re-entering the United States following removal. The district court sentenced him to 51 months in prison. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court miscalculated his advisory Guidelines range by deferring to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’ commentary rather than applying the Guidelines themselves.   Defendant argued that (A) after Kisor, courts should not defer to the Guidelines’ commentary unless the Guidelines themselves are ambiguous. He then argued that (B) Application Note 3 to Section 2L1.2 conflicts with the unambiguous Guidelines by requiring courts to “double-count” certain prior convictions when calculating the guidelines range. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the Defendant’s conviction for illegal reentry. The court held that the district court properly calculated Defendant’s guidelines range, and his double-counting objection lacks merit.   The court reasoned that Application Note 3 to Section 2L1.2 is not in tension with the Guidelines. Rather, application Note 3 merely describes what the Guidelines’ text and structure would unambiguously require even in its absence. Further, Defendant cites no precedent supporting his argument that “double-counting” is per se incompatible with the Guidelines and the Guidelines’ text and structure do not support Defendant’s argument. View "USA v. Cordova-Lopez" on Justia Law