Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The district court decided that the government was not authorized under 8 C.F.R. 241.14(d) to continue holding petitioner in immigration detention pending his removal from the United States and ordered the government to release him. The government appealed and argued that section 241.14(d) is not inconsistent with its authorizing statute, 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6), and that it provides adequate procedural due process.The Second Circuit granted the government's motion for a stay pending appeal, holding that the government has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the district court erred in holding that section 241.14(d) is inconsistent with section 1231(a)(6) and does not provide adequate procedural due process. The court also held that the government has made a strong showing of a likelihood of success on its argument that the district court erred in holding that section 241.14(d) is not a permissible reading of section 1231(a)(6). Furthermore, considerations of irreparable harm and the equities favor a stay of petitioner's release pending appeal. View "Hassoun v. Searls" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging petitioner's removal for committing two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The panel held that the BIA did not err in concluding that a California Penal Code 646.9(a) criminal stalking conviction qualifies as a CIMT because a section 646.9(a) offense is categorically a CIMT. The panel stated that the BIA's reliance on In re Ajami, 22 I. & N. Dec. 949 (B.I.A. 1999), to determine that a section 646.9(a) criminal stalking conviction constitutes a CIMT is entitled to Skidmore deference, rather than Chevron deference. Pursuant to the panel's review of the statutory text and in light of its CIMT precedents, the panel concluded that section 646.9 does not plainly and specifically criminalize conduct outside the contours of the federal definition of a CIMT.The panel also held that the BIA reasonably concluded that petitioner's two section 646.9(a) counts of conviction did not arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. In this case, Count 1 of the state felony complaint involved petitioner willfully and maliciously following and harassing one person between June 1, 2015 and April 26, 2017. Count 2 involved the same conduct by petitioner against a different person between March 1, 2017 and April 26, 2017. Accordingly, petitioner is removable as charged under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). View "Orellana v. Barr" on Justia Law

Moran-Garcia, caught off the California coast in a disguised boat, was indicted for attempting to enter the United States after having been deported, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b), and for attempting to enter other than at a place designated, 8 U.S.C. 1325. The indictment alleged that these offenses occurred “within the Southern District of California.” The evidence established that Moran was apprehended six miles off the coast, within sight of the lights of San Diego. San Diego is within the Southern District of California. Defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of venue, arguing that the Southern District extended only three miles out to sea. The court denied the motion and ruled that no jury instruction was appropriate because venue was a legal question that it had already decided.The Ninth Circuit vacated, finding that venue was not established. The Southern District of California as defined by Congress comprises the counties of (landlocked) Imperial and San Diego. The territorial sea of the United States extends to 12 nautical miles, but that is not true of the Southern District of California. California law defines the western border of San Diego County as extending “to a point three English miles [into the] Pacific Ocean.” Venue is a question of fact that the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.” It is a jury question. View "United States v. Moran-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal and affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his immigration case. The court held that Pierre v. Holder, 738 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2013), foreclosed petitioner's claim that the application of former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3) as written violates his right to equal protection. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (2017). Pet. Br. at 14, did not invalidate Pierre.As to petitioner's alternative argument that the BIA must consider in the first instance whether his conviction for assault in the second degree under NYPL 120.05(2) is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(a), the court held that his argument is precluded by Singh v. Barr, 939 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2019) (per curiam). View "Dale v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit granted petitions for review of the BIA's decisions ordering petitioners removed based on their New York firearms convictions. The court principally concluded that the statutes of conviction, sections 265.03 and 265.11 of the New York Penal Law, criminalize conduct involving "antique firearms" that the relevant firearms offense definitions in the Immigration and Nationality Act do not. Therefore, the court held that this categorical mismatch precludes petitioners' removal on the basis of their state convictions. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's decisions and remanded with instructions to terminate the removal hearings. View "Jack v. Barr" on Justia Law

Approximately 25 years after his guilty plea to resisting a police officer with violence, an IJ found petitioner removable and ruled he was no longer eligible for cancellation of removal on account of the stop-time rule.The Eleventh Circuit held that it was error to retroactively apply the stop-time rule to petitioner's pre-Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) conviction. The court found no clear congressional statement that the stop-time rule should be applied retroactively to pre-IIRIRA plea agreements like petitioner's and held that in the circumstances presented here—specifically, where petitioner's pre-IIRIRA plea agreement did not render him immediately deportable—applying the stop-time rule to his 1995 conviction would have an impermissibly retroactive effect. Therefore, the court reversed the BIA's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rendon v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision finding that petitioner was removable because he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. The court held that neither of petitioner's convictions for leaving an accident in violation of Va. Code Ann. 46.2–894 and for use of false identification in violation of Va. Code Ann. 18.2–186.3(B1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The court explained that petitioner's failure-to-stop conviction lacked the required culpable mental state and there is no morally reprehensible conduct. Regardless of the required culpable mental state, the court was not convinced that the offense of false identification has the required moral reprehensible conduct to qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order of removal and remanded with instructions that the government be directed to return petitioner to the United States. View "Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's December 2015 order of removal, holding that the BIA did not err in relying on binding precedent to conclude that petitioner was removable on the ground that he was convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude. The panel discussed that, if it were writing on a clean slate, what categorical analysis it would use. However, because the panel was not writing on a clean slate, the panel held, according to binding precedent, that petty theft under section 484(a) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude.The panel also denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, holding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for asylum or withholding of removal. Finally, the panel held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for protection under the Convention Against Torture. View "Silva v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit held that petitioner's prior misdemeanor conviction under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A), for willful discharge of "any firearm" in a public place without resulting bodily injury, qualifies as a federal "firearm offense" for purposes of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C). The court held that the plain language of the Virginia statute, as supported by later acts of Virginia's legislature and by decisions of its appellate courts, prohibits conduct involving the use of a "any firearm," including antique firearms. Therefore, petitioner was not required to identify a prosecution under the Virginia statute involving an antique firearm to defend against removal. Accordingly, the conduct punishable under Virginia Code 18.2-280(A) is broader than the conduct encompassed by the federal definition of a "firearm offense." View "Gordon v. Barr" on Justia Law

In petition No. 18-834, petitioner contends principally that the BIA erred (a) in rejecting his challenge to the IJ's ruling that he failed to carry his burden of showing his procedurally regular admission to the United States, (b) in rejecting his contention that he was denied due process by the IJ's evidentiary rulings minimizing or curtailing evidence to show his procedurally regular admission, and (c) in denying his motion to reopen the proceeding to present newly discovered evidence. In petition No. 19-737, petitioner contends that the BIA erred in rejecting his contention that intervening legal authority requires the conclusion that criminal possession of stolen property was not a crime involving moral turpitude at the time of his conviction.The Second Circuit denied so much of Petition No 18-834 as contends that petitioner was denied due process. The court dismissed the remainder of that petition for lack of jurisdiction. In regard to Petition No. 19-737, the court held that there was no error in the Board's determination that petitioner's conviction for criminal possession of stolen property was a crime involving moral turpitude. Furthermore, the Board did not err by rejecting petitioner's motion to reopen removal proceedings based on petitioner's claim of an intervening change in the law. Therefore, the court denied the petition in No. 19-737. View "Ottey v. Barr" on Justia Law