Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Victor Zarate-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Zarate pleaded guilty to knowing or reckless child abuse in violation of Colorado law. Several years later, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he was present without having been admitted or paroled. Zarate conceded removability and filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the application, concluding that Zarate was ineligible for cancellation under section 1229b(b)(l)(C) because his state child abuse conviction constituted “a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The BIA agreed with the IJ’s determination and dismissed Zarate’s appeal. Challenging the Board's decisions, Zarate argued: (1) the BIA’s most recent interpretations of section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) were not entitled to deference; and (2) his state conviction was not a categorical match to a “crime of child abuse” as defined by the Board. The Tenth Circuit rejected both arguments and affirmed the Board. View "Zarate-Alvarez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Aristy-Rosa, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was admitted to the U.S. in 1993 as a lawful permanent resident. Several years later, he was convicted of attempted criminal sale of cocaine and was sentenced to five years’ probation. Aristy-Rosa received a notice, charging him as subject to removal because he had committed a crime relating to a controlled substance, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), his controlled substances conviction constituted an aggravated felony, section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and he was an alien who was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) at the time of his application for adjustment of status. Aristy-Rosa conceded removability and sought no relief from removal. An IJ ordered Aristy-Rosa removed. Aristy-Rosa did not appeal but later filed unsuccessful motions to reopen his removal proceedings to apply for adjustment of status and other relief.In 2017, New York Governor Cuomo fully and unconditionally pardoned Aristy-Rosa for his controlled substance conviction. Aristy-Rosa moved to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that the pardon eliminated the basis for his removal. The IJ denied the motion, reasoning that it was time- and number-barred and that a pardon fails to extinguish the basis for removal where the underlying conviction was for a controlled substance offense. The BIA and Third Circuit dismissed his appeals. Section 1227(a)(2)(B), which provides for the removal of an alien convicted under any law relating to a controlled substance, contains no pardon waiver. View "Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue they presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on whether the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) empowered judges to detain defendants who were non-citizens to prevent immigration officials from removing them from the country before trial. Defendants Juan Molchor and Jose Rios were arrested and charged with aggravated assault and criminal mischief. Pretrial Services prepared Public Safety Assessments (PSAs) for both defendants, rating both defendants 1 out of 6 for failure to appear (the lowest level of risk), and 2 out of 6 for new criminal activity. Neither defendant had any pending charges, prior convictions, prior failures to appear, or prior juvenile adjudications. Pretrial Services recommended that both be released with monthly reporting. The State moved for pretrial detention, claiming defendants posed a flight risk because they were undocumented immigrants. The State presented no evidence that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was interested in either defendant. The court ordered both defendants detained pretrial, noting that, but for their immigration status, both would likely have been released. The Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division that the DJRA did not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE: "it would be preferable for ICE to refrain from deporting defendants while they await trial for many reasons. If removal proceedings occur while a case is pending, we again urge ICE officials to work with prosecutors to allow pending criminal charges to be resolved." View "New Jersey v. Lopez-Carrera" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging petitioner's removability and seeking asylum. Petitioner, a Somali native who is part of a minority Islamic sect called Sufism, fled Somalia to escape the country's civil war. He came to the United States in 2000 and his entire family resides in the United States, including his nine children.The court concluded that petitioner's conviction for possession of khat relates to a federal controlled substance under 8 U.S.C.  1227(a)(2)(B)(i). In this case, khat contains at least one of two substances listed on the federal drug schedules and thus petitioner is removable. In regard to asylum, the court applied de novo review and concluded that petitioner's evidence was insufficient to establish the social distinctiveness of his proposed social group: those suffering from mental health illnesses, specifically post traumatic stress disorder. Furthermore, the Board did not err in concluding that the IJ's factual finding that the Somali government was helpless against al-Shabaab was clearly erroneous. View "Ahmed v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a legal permanent resident, was twice charged as removable by the federal government, once in 2012 and once in 2016. Petitioner challenged the second removability charge as barred by res judicata. The Fifth Circuit agreed with the BIA's determination that res judicata did not bar the second removability charge because it was based on a different statutory provision and was unavailable to the Government when the first charge was brought. Petitioner also argued that the Government failed to meet 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)'s statutory requirements and that the BIA denied him due process of law. The court concluded that these two issues have not been addressed by the BIA in the first instance and thus they are not ripe for disposition. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied the petition in part. View "Rodriguez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's order of removal of petitioner as an alien convicted of aggravated felonies after his admission to the United States. In this case, petitioner was a citizen when he was convicted. At issue is whether a denaturalized alien is removable as an aggravated felon based on convictions entered while he was an American citizen.The court explained that, by its plain terms, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to aliens who were citizens when convicted. Therefore, the court held that the plain meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) forecloses the BIA's interpretation. Furthermore, binding precedent, Costello v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 376 U.S. 120 (1964), forecloses treating petitioner's denaturalization as retroactive for removal purposes. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hylton v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed: 1) an order withdrawing the opinion and concurring opinion appearing at 965 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2020), denying the petition for rehearing en banc as moot, and providing that the parties may file petitions for rehearing and hearing en banc in response to the new opinion; 2) a new opinion denying the petitions for review of the BIA's decisions; and 3) a new concurring opinion.The panel held, based on its binding precedent, that the BIA did not err in concluding that petty theft under section 484(a) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude, and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen to seek asylum and related relief based on changed country conditions in the Philippines. The panel explained that it need not address the question whether Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga is retroactively applicable in this case and need not apply the Montgomery Ward test to answer that question. View "Silva v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Abiel Perez-Perez pled guilty to being an alien in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenged the district court’s failure to advise him of two elements of that offense: (1) the alien was illegally or unlawfully present in the United States; and (2) the alien knew that he was illegally or unlawfully present. The government conceded that the omission of these elements constituted error that was now plain on appeal. The only dispute was whether Perez satisfied the third and fourth prongs of plain-error review. The Tenth Circuit concluded Perez could not satisfy the third prong because he could not show that the error affected his substantial rights. "Although Perez has a credible claim that, at the time of the offense, he did not know he was unlawfully present in the United States, he has failed to show a reasonable probability that he would not have pled guilty but for the district court’s error. This is because the context of Perez’s guilty plea makes clear that he pled guilty to avoid mandatory minimum sentences attached to charges the government dismissed in exchange for the guilty plea. Perez fails to show how the district court’s error impacted that choice, and he thus fails to satisfy the third plain-error prong." View "United States v. Perez-Perez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's denial of Appellant's petition for postconviction relief after determining that his stay of adjudication and discharge from probation was not a conviction, holding that Appellant's stay of adjudication was not a conviction.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to domestic assault-intentional infliction of bodily harm. The district court accepted Appellant's plea of guilty and stayed adjudication under the parties' agreement. After Appellant successfully completed and was discharged from probation he received notice that he was scheduled for immigration removal proceedings. Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010). The postconviction court concluded that Appellant had not been convicted of a crime and was therefore not eligible for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain meaning of the phrase "a person convicted of a crime" in Minn. Stat. 590.01, subd. 1 means a person who has a conviction under Minnesota law; and (2) Appellant's stay of adjudication did not meet this definition. View "Johnston v. State" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's conclusion that one of petitioner's three convictions rendered petitioner removeable. At issue is petitioner's 2018 conviction for knowingly possessing a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 2-A, in violation of Texas Health & Safety Code 481.1161(a). In this case petitioner possessed MMB-Fubinaca, which, he agrees, is a federally controlled substance. However, Penalty Group 2-A also includes at least one substance that is not federally controlled.The court concluded that petitioner's 2018 conviction did not render him removeable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court explained that the government failed to show that Penalty Group 2-A is divisible. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that Penalty Group 2-A is broader than the federal statute, and "there is no categorical match" between Penalty Group 2-A and its federal counterpart. Here, the parties agree that Penalty Group 2-A criminalizes possession of at least one substance—naphthoylindane—that the federal statute does not mention. The panel declined to terminate petitioner's removal proceedings. Instead, the court remanded for consideration of whether petitioner has shown a realistic probability that Texas would prosecute conduct that falls outside the relevant federal statute. The panel also remanded for consideration of whether petitioner's 2009 and 2013 convictions render him removable, in the event that petitioner succeeds on the realistic-probability inquiry. View "Alejos-Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law