Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant, a Mexican citizen, was first brought to the United States as a child. He was discovered by federal officials in Texas in 2015 and deported later that year. In 2020, he was again found in the United States and arrested on outstanding warrants. He was convicted in state court for drug-related offenses and sentenced to five years in prison. While serving this sentence, he was screened by immigration authorities and subsequently indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). In 2024, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge without a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release, adopting special conditions recommended in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), including requirements to report to immigration authorities and seek work authorization.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed at sentencing that the defendant and his counsel had reviewed the PSR, which contained the special conditions. The court orally adopted the PSR and its appendix, imposed the recommended conditions, and provided the defendant an opportunity to object. The defendant’s counsel objected only to the relationship between the federal and state offenses, not to the special conditions. The written judgment included all the conditions from the PSR. The defendant appealed, arguing that the written judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement regarding the special conditions of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error, as the defendant had notice and an opportunity to object at sentencing but did not do so. The court held that the district court satisfied the oral-pronouncement requirement by adopting the PSR and providing notice and opportunity to object. Therefore, there was no conflict between the written judgment and the oral pronouncement, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Quezada-Atayde" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was ordered removed after being convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree under New York Penal Law (NYPL) § 130.60(2). This conviction was deemed an "aggravated felony" under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(A) and 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because it constituted "sexual abuse of a minor." Approximately a year later, the petitioner moved to reopen his removal proceedings, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion as untimely and concluded that he did not warrant equitable tolling.An Immigration Judge (IJ) initially determined that the petitioner’s conviction was an aggravated felony, rendering him removable and ineligible for asylum and cancellation of removal. The IJ also found the conviction to be a "particularly serious crime," barring withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the petitioner’s motion to remand for consideration of new evidence regarding his mental health and diabetes diagnosis.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court dismissed the petition challenging the removal order, citing its recent decision in Debique v. Garland, which held that a conviction under NYPL § 130.60(2) is categorically an aggravated felony. The court rejected the petitioner’s arguments that Debique was not binding and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo undermined its precedential force. The court also denied the petition challenging the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen, finding that the BIA had a reasonable basis for concluding that the petitioner failed to show due diligence for the entire period between the expiration of the 90-day deadline and the filing of the motion. View "Garcia Pinach v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Ismael Adan Ortiz-Rodriguez, a non-citizen, was removed from the United States in 2017 following expedited removal proceedings initiated by DHS. In 2023, he was convicted of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Before trial, Ortiz-Rodriguez moved to dismiss his indictment by collaterally attacking his 2017 deportation order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), arguing that his expedited removal involved an unknowing and involuntary waiver of judicial review and violated his due process rights. The district court denied his motion.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found Ortiz-Rodriguez guilty and sentenced him to fifty-one months of imprisonment. He appealed the decision, arguing that his 2017 expedited removal proceedings were fundamentally unfair and deprived him of judicial review. The district court also revoked his supervised release from a prior § 1326 prosecution, sentencing him to an additional fourteen months of imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Ortiz-Rodriguez did not satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) because he failed to show that the 2017 expedited removal proceedings deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review or that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. The court noted that Ortiz-Rodriguez had the right to appeal his expedited removal but did not do so, and his waiver of the right to appeal was considered and intelligent. Additionally, the court found that changes in substantive law after his removal did not render the proceedings fundamentally unfair or procedurally deficient. View "United States v. Ortiz-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Edin Anael Solis-Rodriguez, an illegal alien, brandished firearms in two separate incidents at local restaurants in Charlotte, North Carolina. In the second incident, he shot a patron, Chris Silva, at point-blank range, causing severe injuries. Solis-Rodriguez was charged with two counts of possessing a firearm as an illegal alien under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5). He pled guilty to both counts.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted his guilty plea and sentenced him to a total of 180 months' imprisonment, with 120 months for the first count and 60 months for the second count, to be served consecutively. The court considered the presentence report, which included a 4-level enhancement for using a firearm in connection with attempted murder, resulting in a guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Solis-Rodriguez's objections to the enhancement and the argument that the two offenses should be considered one continuing offense were rejected.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. Solis-Rodriguez challenged the Rule 11 colloquy as plainly erroneous and his sentence as procedurally unreasonable. The Fourth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that there was a plain error in the Rule 11 colloquy but found that it did not affect Solis-Rodriguez’s substantial rights. The court also held that the district court adequately considered and explained the sentencing factors, including Solis-Rodriguez’s age and lack of violent criminal history, and found the sentence procedurally reasonable. Consequently, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Solis-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In January 2015, Juan Carlos Benitez-Torres, a lawful permanent resident, was stopped by police while driving a car with tinted windows. The car, not registered to him, was searched, and methamphetamine was found in hidden compartments. Benitez was charged with narcotics offenses. His family hired attorney Kenneth Reed for $15,000, but Reed appeared only four times and did not file a motion to suppress the evidence. In August 2015, Reed advised Benitez to accept a three-year plea deal without adequately explaining the immigration consequences. Benitez pleaded guilty and was deported after his release.Benitez filed a motion under Penal Code section 1473.7 in January 2023 to vacate his guilty plea, arguing he did not understand the immigration consequences and was prejudiced by this lack of understanding. The Superior Court of Orange County denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that Benitez did not understand the consequences of his plea.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that Reed did not provide adequate advice regarding the immigration consequences of the plea, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky. The court determined that Benitez did not meaningfully understand the mandatory deportation consequences of his plea and that there was a reasonable probability he would have rejected the plea had he understood these consequences. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with directions to allow Benitez to withdraw his 2015 guilty pleas. View "People v. Benitez-Torres" on Justia Law

In 2019, the defendant pled guilty to multiple counts of burglary and robbery. During the plea colloquy, he falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and stated he was born in New York, despite being born in Mexico. The presentence report noted his birthplace as Mexico but left many fields blank. At sentencing, the defendant's counsel, Carol Wentworth, reviewed the report with him, and he confirmed his U.S. citizenship. The court sentenced him to five years of Recovery Court Probation. After violating probation terms, the defendant was sentenced to five years' incarceration.The defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not being informed of the immigration consequences of his plea. The PCR court found sentencing counsel ineffective for not investigating discrepancies in the presentence report and granted the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed in part, agreeing that counsel failed to advise the defendant of deportation risks but remanded for further consideration on whether the defendant could withdraw his plea.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case and held that sentencing counsel was not constitutionally ineffective. The court found that the counsel's performance was not deficient as the presentence report did not clearly indicate non-citizenship, and the defendant repeatedly asserted his U.S. citizenship. The court emphasized that no court has required independent verification of a client's citizenship status beyond asking the client. The court reversed the Appellate Division's judgment and remanded to the PCR court for entry of an order denying the defendant's petition. View "State v. Hernandez-Peralta" on Justia Law

Raul Perez Cruz, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to money laundering in 2021 and was sentenced to 144 months in prison. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him. He conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on past experiences with cartels and fear of retaliation due to his purported cooperation with the U.S. government.An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum and withholding of removal due to his conviction of a particularly serious crime. The IJ also denied his CAT claim, finding that he did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured upon return to Mexico, nor that he could not safely relocate within Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that his fear of future torture was speculative and that there was no due process violation despite technical difficulties during the hearing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that Perez Cruz did not meet his burden to show he would more likely than not be tortured if returned to Mexico. The court also found that Perez Cruz did not overcome the presumption that the agency reviewed all evidence before it. Additionally, the court was not persuaded by his contention that audio issues during his hearing denied him due process, as there was no demonstration that the IJ prejudicially missed or misunderstood anything said during the hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Perez Cruz v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In October 2018, Veronica Pineda De Aquino used a false identity to apply for a U.S. passport, submitting fraudulent documents. Investigators, with the cooperation of the real identity holder, A.E., determined Pineda was a Mexican citizen who had entered the U.S. in 1999. In June 2023, a grand jury indicted Pineda for making a false statement in a passport application and using another person’s social security number. Pineda initially pled not guilty but later entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the first count in exchange for the dismissal of the second count.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas accepted Pineda’s guilty plea but deferred the decision on the plea agreement until reviewing the presentence investigation report (PSR). The PSR detailed Pineda’s difficult background and calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 0 to 6 months of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court adopted the PSR without objection but varied upward, sentencing Pineda to 32 months of imprisonment, citing the seriousness of her offense and the need for deterrence. The court dismissed the second count as per the plea agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Pineda argued that the district court erred by not expressly accepting or rejecting the plea agreement and by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The appellate court found that the district court constructively accepted the plea agreement and that any error was not plain. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Pineda above the Guidelines range, considering the aggravating factors and the need for deterrence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "United States v. De Aquino" on Justia Law

Robert Lanoue, a Canadian citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to submitting false claims to the government under 18 U.S.C. § 287. He operated a scuba school that was part of a government program funded by the post-9/11 GI Bill, which reimbursed him for teaching veterans. Lanoue admitted to submitting false and fraudulent claims, resulting in a loss of over $3 million to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Following his conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that his crime was an aggravated felony involving fraud or deceit with losses exceeding $10,000.The Immigration Judge found that Lanoue's crime met the criteria for an aggravated felony and denied his request for a waiver of inadmissibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this decision, leading Lanoue to petition for review.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that Lanoue's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 287 categorically involved deceit, as the statute requires knowingly submitting false claims to the government. The court also found that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that the loss exceeded $10,000, based on Lanoue's stipulation and plea agreement indicating losses between $1.5 and $3.5 million.Lanoue's argument for a retroactive waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) was rejected. The court noted that to qualify for such a waiver, a lawful permanent resident must have been convicted or admitted to the crime at the time of reentry, which was not the case for Lanoue.The Third Circuit held that filing false claims under 18 U.S.C. § 287 is an aggravated felony involving deceit, and the government sufficiently proved the loss amount. Consequently, Lanoue is removable and ineligible for a waiver. The court denied his petition for review. View "Lanoue v. Attorney General United States of America" on Justia Law

Victor Manuel Castro-Aleman, originally from El Salvador, was brought to the United States illegally in 1973 as a child. Over the years, he had multiple encounters with law enforcement, including four DUI convictions in Virginia between 2009 and 2014. In 2016, while serving a sentence for his fourth DUI, he was visited by ICE agents and subsequently issued a Notice to Appear in removal proceedings. He was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) after failing to submit an asylum application and not appealing the removal order. Castro-Aleman reentered the United States illegally and was discovered in Virginia in 2023, leading to his indictment for illegal reentry.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Castro-Aleman's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that his 2016 removal order was invalid due to due process violations. The district court found that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the removal order.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Castro-Aleman failed to demonstrate that his removal order was "fundamentally unfair" under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3). The court found that even if there were due process violations, such as the IJ's failure to inform him adequately of his right to appeal, Castro-Aleman could not show actual prejudice. His extensive criminal history and admissions during the removal hearing established multiple independent grounds for his removability, making any appeal futile. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of his motion to dismiss and upheld his conviction for illegal reentry. View "United States v. Castro-Aleman" on Justia Law