Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the United States, which under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) carries a maximum sentence that depends on the defendant’s criminal history. Without a prior felony, the maximum is two years; with a prior felony, it is ten years; and with an aggravated felony, it is twenty years. The defendant had two prior felony convictions, but neither was for an aggravated felony. However, the government and probation office mistakenly assumed one conviction was for an aggravated felony, suggesting a twenty-year maximum.The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico sentenced the defendant, possibly under the mistaken belief that the statutory maximum was twenty years. The defendant did not object to this error at the time. On appeal, both parties agreed that the correct statutory maximum was ten years, not twenty. The defendant argued that this error should be presumed prejudicial, while the government contended that the defendant must show actual prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the government, stating that the defendant must show prejudice from the error. The court noted that other circuits have similarly required defendants to demonstrate prejudice in such situations. The court found no evidence that the district court’s error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, as the 42-month sentence was well below the correct ten-year maximum and at the bottom of the guideline range. The court concluded that the defendant did not show that the error had a substantial impact on his sentence and affirmed the 42-month sentence. View "United States v. Calderon-Padilla" on Justia Law

Zackaria Dahir Mohamed, a native of Somalia, entered the United States as a child refugee in 1998. He was later convicted of several offenses, including theft and assault with a dangerous weapon. In 2013, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him due to these convictions. An Immigration Judge (IJ) ordered his removal in 2018, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Mohamed then petitioned for review.The IJ initially found Mohamed removable for aggravated felony theft and crimes of violence. In 2020, the IJ ordered his removal to Somalia. Mohamed appealed to the BIA, which remanded the case to the IJ to assess Mohamed’s competency. On remand, Mohamed presented evidence of his mental health history, including a psychological evaluation by Dr. Jerry Kroll. The IJ ruled in 2021 that Mohamed was competent during the 2020 merits hearing, based on Dr. Kroll’s testimony and the IJ’s observations. The BIA dismissed Mohamed’s appeal on de novo review, leading to the current petition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. Mohamed argued that the BIA’s affirmation of the IJ’s competency finding was unsupported by the record. The court noted that it has jurisdiction to review final agency removal orders but not factual findings related to criminal offenses. The court found that Mohamed’s competency determination was a factual finding, which is generally affirmed unless clearly erroneous. Mohamed’s claims were barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).Even if Mohamed presented a legal or constitutional claim, the court found no fundamental procedural error or resulting prejudice. The IJ had considered all appropriate evidence, including Dr. Kroll’s testimony and Mohamed’s behavior during proceedings. The court concluded that there was no procedural error in holding a retroactive competency hearing. The petition for review was denied. View "Mohamed v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Erick Jose Sandoval Argueta, a Salvadoran national, was lawfully present in the United States when he solicited sex over the internet from someone he believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl, who was actually an undercover police officer. He was convicted in Texas of online solicitation of a minor. Based on this conviction, an immigration judge (IJ) ordered him removed for committing a "crime of child abuse." The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision.Sandoval Argueta filed two petitions for review. In the first, he challenged the BIA's determination of his removability and its denial of his motion to reconsider. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that Sandoval Argueta had been convicted of multiple crimes, including property theft, drug trafficking, and online solicitation of a minor. The government initially charged him with removability based on the solicitation conviction but later added charges related to his drug trafficking conviction. After the drug trafficking conviction was vacated, the government reasserted the "crime of child abuse" charge.The Fifth Circuit held that the best reading of "crime of child abuse" under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) includes convictions for online solicitation of a minor, even if no actual child was involved. The court reasoned that the statute's broad language encompasses offenses that create a high risk of harm to a child, including attempt offenses. Therefore, Sandoval Argueta's conviction under Texas Penal Code § 33.021(c) categorically met the definition of a "crime of child abuse."In his second petition, Sandoval Argueta argued that the BIA erred by not considering his equitable tolling argument when denying his motion to reconsider. The Fifth Circuit found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, as it was procedurally barred by statutory limits on the number of motions to reconsider and the prohibition on reconsidering a decision on a prior motion to reconsider.The Fifth Circuit denied both petitions for review. View "Argueta v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Erika Marie Plancarte pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport an alien into the United States. The plea agreement required the government to recommend a 90-day imprisonment sentence. At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, Plancarte illegally transported a woman and her three children into the U.S., using false documents. She was arrested after admitting to the smuggling.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California received a presentence report (PSR) that contained ambiguities about the relationship between the woman and the children. Plancarte requested a non-custodial sentence, while the government adhered to the plea agreement, recommending 90 days of custody. The government also clarified the PSR's ambiguities and highlighted Plancarte's criminal history and recidivism, arguing that previous sentences had not deterred her behavior. Plancarte argued that the government breached the plea agreement by including additional commentary and referencing her criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government did not implicitly breach the plea agreement. The government’s references to Plancarte’s criminal history and its clarification of the PSR were permissible and did not undermine the plea agreement. The court found that the government’s comments were made in good faith and were consistent with advocating for the agreed-upon sentence. The court also noted that the government was not required to present mitigating evidence. Consequently, the appellate waiver in the plea agreement was enforced, and the appeal was dismissed. View "USA V. PLANCARTE" on Justia Law

Samir Fernandes Baptista, a lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Massachusetts of unarmed assault with intent to rob or steal. During his removal proceedings, the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that this state crime is categorically an aggravated felony attempted theft offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Consequently, the immigration judge ordered Baptista removed for committing an aggravated felony after admission, and the BIA upheld this order.Baptista appealed the BIA's decision, arguing that his conviction does not qualify as an attempted theft offense under the INA. He contended that under Massachusetts law, a defendant could be convicted of unarmed assault by stealing property with the victim’s fraudulently obtained consent, which would make the state offense broader than the generic federal theft offense that requires the taking to be against the victim’s will. Baptista also argued that his conviction cannot qualify as an attempt because it does not require a defendant to commit an overt act toward a taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the BIA's legal conclusion de novo. The court concluded that the Massachusetts unarmed assault statute requires the taking to be against the victim’s will and involves force and violence, making it a categorical match to a generic federal theft offense. Additionally, the court found that the statute requires an overt act constituting a substantial step towards the commission of the theft, thus qualifying as an attempted theft offense under the INA. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit denied Baptista’s petition for review. View "Baptista v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Adolfo Acevedo Ibarra, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally and used the identity of a U.S. citizen, Raul Cabrera, to obtain various documents and benefits fraudulently. He was detained in 2014 for using a fraudulent Social Security number and later pleaded guilty to illegal entry. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, and Ibarra admitted to the allegations and agreed he was removable. He sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause hardship to his four U.S.-citizen children. However, the immigration judge denied his application, citing his lack of good moral character due to his fraudulent activities.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge's decision, agreeing that Ibarra's significant negative criminal history, including fraud, outweighed any evidence of good character. Ibarra then petitioned for review, claiming that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated during the removal hearing when his attorney's attempts to assert the privilege against self-incrimination were overruled.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's finding that Ibarra lacked good moral character. The court noted that Ibarra's fraudulent activities, even without a conviction, justified the finding under the catchall provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). The court also rejected Ibarra's Fifth Amendment claim, stating that the privilege against self-incrimination must be asserted by the individual, not their attorney, and that Ibarra continued to testify without asserting the privilege himself.The Fourth Circuit denied Ibarra's petition for review, upholding the BIA's decision to deny cancellation of removal based on the substantial evidence of his lack of good moral character and rejecting his Fifth Amendment claims. View "Ibarra v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Efrain Leonides-Seguria, a Mexican citizen without legal status in the United States, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on June 15, 2021, for illegal reentry. Six days later, ICE referred him for criminal prosecution. On June 23, federal prosecutors filed a criminal complaint, and a magistrate judge issued an arrest warrant. Leonides-Seguria remained in immigration custody until June 28, when he was arrested on the criminal complaint. He later waived prosecution by indictment, consenting to the filing of a criminal information on July 27.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Leonides-Seguria’s motions to dismiss the federal charge, arguing that the government violated the Speedy Trial Act and that 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is unconstitutional. He pled guilty but reserved the right to appeal these denials. The district court sentenced him to 51 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. Leonides-Seguria argued that the Speedy Trial Act was violated because the criminal information was filed more than 30 days after his apprehension. He urged the court to recognize a "ruse exception," where civil detention by immigration authorities is used to delay criminal prosecution. The Seventh Circuit declined to resolve the legal question of the ruse exception, finding that the facts did not support its application. The court found no evidence of collusion between ICE and federal prosecutors to circumvent the Speedy Trial Act. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and upheld the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, consistent with precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v Leonides-Seguria" on Justia Law

Eugenia Bautista Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order of removal based on her 2011 conviction for petit larceny under section 18.2-96 of the Virginia Code. The Board held that petit larceny categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering Chavez ineligible for cancellation of removal. Chavez argued that a defendant in Virginia could be convicted of larceny for taking property that he or she sincerely but unreasonably believed was abandoned, which falls short of the requisite mental state for a crime involving moral turpitude. She also contended that petit larceny for taking property of de minimis value does not constitute sufficiently reprehensible conduct to make out a crime involving moral turpitude.The Immigration Judge ruled for the government, reasoning that he was required to find that petit larceny was a crime involving moral turpitude under the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Hernandez v. Holder. Chavez appealed to the Board, arguing that Virginia petit larceny did not require a culpable mental state and did not involve reprehensible conduct. The Board dismissed Chavez’s appeal, concluding that the offense required a culpable mental state and involved reprehensible conduct. Chavez then moved the Board to reconsider its decision, but a temporary Board member denied her motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and denied Chavez’s petition. The court held that Virginia petit larceny is a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, which satisfies the culpable mental state requirement. The court also found that the offense involves reprehensible conduct, regardless of the value of the property taken. Additionally, the court rejected Chavez’s challenge to the authority of the temporary Board member who decided her reconsideration motion, citing its previous decision in Salomon-Guillen v. Garland. View "Chavez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Jordan Pulido developed an online relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl, I.G., and, with the help of his father, Roberto Jimenez, traveled to Croatia to have sex with her. They later brought her to the United States, where Pulido continued to have sex with her. Pulido was indicted on multiple counts, including using the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and transporting a minor for sexual activity. Jimenez was indicted for conspiring to transport a minor for sexual activity.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Pulido's pre-trial motions to dismiss the indictment, suppress evidence, and exclude testimony. Both defendants were convicted on all counts after a nine-day trial. Post-trial motions for acquittal, a new trial, and a mistrial were also denied. Jimenez received sentence enhancements for exercising undue influence and having custody or supervisory control over I.G.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions on most counts but vacated Pulido's conviction on the enticement count, finding the indictment duplicitous. The court held that the enticement count was not harmless and remanded for resentencing. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Pulido's motion to suppress evidence from his electronic devices, holding that the border search exception applied. Additionally, the court found no fundamental unfairness in the translation irregularities during I.G.'s mother's testimony.For Jimenez, the court affirmed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, finding sufficient evidence of his intent to transport I.G. for sexual activity. The court also upheld the denial of his motion for a mistrial based on Agent Garcia's testimony about his immigration status, concluding that the curative instruction mitigated any potential prejudice. Finally, the court affirmed the application of the sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody or supervisory control. View "U.S. v. Pulido" on Justia Law

Muhammad Masood, a licensed physician from Pakistan, came to the United States in 2018 on a non-immigrant visa to work as an unpaid medical researcher. In 2019, he became radicalized by Islamic extremist content and planned to join ISIS. In March 2020, he was arrested at the Minneapolis airport with plans to travel to ISIS-controlled territory. A search revealed military and medical supplies, computers, and digital storage devices containing extremist propaganda. Masood pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota adopted the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) and sentenced Masood to 216 months imprisonment, varying downward from the statutory maximum of 240 months. Masood appealed, arguing procedural errors in applying the terrorism enhancement, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and alleged violations of his due process rights and right to allocution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no procedural error in applying the terrorism enhancement, as the evidence supported that Masood's offense was intended to promote terrorism. The court also found that the district court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence. Additionally, the court determined there was no violation of Rule 32(i) or the Due Process Clause, as Masood and his counsel were given opportunities to argue and allocute before the final sentence was imposed. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Masood" on Justia Law