Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with possession of a firearm and ammunition while unlawfully present in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A). The court rejected defendant's contention that his receipt of relief pursuant to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and associated benefits consisting of work authorization, permission to hold a social security card and/or driver's license, and two-year protection from removal render him legally and lawfully present in the United States. In this case, defendant lacked lawful immigration status and he has failed to show entitlement of relief. Because the district court's written judgment incorrectly states that the statute of conviction is Section 922(g)(1), rather than Section 922(g)(5)(A), as alleged in Count One of the superseding indictment, the court affirmed the judgment but reformed it to reflect the conviction under Section 922(g)(5)(A). View "United States v. Arrieta" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, in which plaintiff sought a custody redetermination as he awaits the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that, because plaintiff's reinstated removal order remains administratively final, he was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a); section 1226(a) has no application in this case; and thus plaintiff was not entitled to a bond hearing. View "Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Poland, was charged with sexual assault in the fourth degree. The superior court granted Defendant’s application for accelerated rehabilitation. Defendant was subsequently ordered removed from the United States and deported to Poland. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant had failed successfully to complete the accelerated rehabilitation program, terminated Defendant’s participation in the program, and ordered his rearrest on the pending criminal charge. Defendant appealed. The Appellate Court did not reach the merits of Defendant’s claims, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed as moot under State v. Aquino, 901 A.2d 1194 (Conn. 2006). Specifically, the court found that Defendant’s appeal was rendered moot by his deportation because the reason for his deportation was unrelated to the accelerated rehabilitation program or the pending criminal charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Aquino, properly construed, did not control the present case because the record established the reason for Defendant’s deportation; and (2) there was a reasonable possibility that the trial court’s orders would result in prejudicial collateral consequences. View "State v. Jerzy G." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its memorandum disposition filed December 14, 2016, denied a petition for rehearing en banc as moot, and filed this opinion reversing defendant's conviction for illegal reentry.After defendant was convicted of conspiracy to export defense articles without a license and was removed from the United States, he returned and was convicted of illegal reentry. The panel held that defendant was not originally removable as charged, and so could not be convicted of illegal reentry. In this case, because the statute was overbroad and indivisible, defendant's conviction under 22 U.S.C. 2778 could not serve as a proper predicate for removal—either as an aggravated felony or a firearms offense. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Ochoa" on Justia Law

Defendant moved to vacate his conviction for one count of assault in the first degree and withdraw his plea of no contest to the charge, arguing that the district court erred by failing to properly advise him of the immigration consequences of conviction before accepting his plea. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of no contest, concluding that that Defendant was advised of an immigration consequence of his plea during the plea colloquy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under State v. Yos-Chiguil, 772 N.W.2d 574 (Neb. 2009), Defendant proved that instead of reciting the advisement set out in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1819.02(1), the district court improvised an advisement, and therefore, Defendant established the first Yos-Chiguil factor; but (2) Defendant failed to establish the second Yos-Chiguil factor entitling him to relief, that he was facing an immigration consequence that was not included in the advisement actually given. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Gach" on Justia Law

Lee moved to the U.S. from South Korea with his parents when he was 13. For 35 years he never returned to South Korea, nor did he become a U.S. citizen. He is a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, Lee admitted possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute. His attorney repeatedly assured him that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty. Lee accepted a plea and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. His conviction was an “aggravated felony,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), so he was subject to mandatory deportation. When Lee learned of this consequence, he moved to vacate his conviction, arguing that his attorney had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. Lee and his plea-stage counsel testified that “deportation was the determinative issue” in Lee's decision to accept a plea. Lee’s counsel acknowledged that although Lee’s defense was weak, if he had known Lee would be deported upon pleading guilty, he would have advised him to go to trial. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of relief. The Supreme Court reversed. Lee established that he was prejudiced by erroneous advice, demonstrating a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” The Court stated that the inquiry demands a “case-by-case examination.” A defendant’s decisionmaking may not turn solely on the likelihood of conviction after trial. When the inquiry is focused on what an individual defendant would have done, the possibility of even a highly improbable result may be pertinent to the extent it would have affected the defendant’s decisionmaking. The Court reasoned that it could not say that it would be irrational for someone in Lee’s position to risk additional prison time in exchange for holding on to some chance of avoiding deportation. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because he had a prior criminal conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err by affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner had a conviction for Aggravated Forgery and that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that petitioner's probation, community service, and fines constitute court-imposed penalties under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48). View "Mendoza-Saenz v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Grenada, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The applications were denied based on petitioner's conviction under NYPL 220.31 for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. The Second Circuit held that NYPL 220.31 defines a single crime and is therefore an indivisible statute. Therefore, the BIA should have applied the categorical approach. Applying the categorical approach, the court held that petitioner's conviction did not constitute a commission of an aggravated felony and consequently did not bar him from seeking cancellation of removal and asylum. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the remainder of the petition. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part, vacated the BIA's rulings in part, and remanded. View "Harbin v. Sessions" on Justia Law

After petitioner committed a drug crime but before his crime was adjudicated, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). At issue was whether the statute can be given effect with respect to petitioner's crime, even though he committed the crime before the statute's passage. The Second Circuit held that the presumption against retroactive legislation barred such an application because the plain text of the statute attaches legal consequences at the time a lawful permanent resident commits a crime, rather than at the time of conviction. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order of removal, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Centurion v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Chagoya‐Morales, a citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the U.S. In 2008, he was convicted of aggravated robbery. In 2009, he was deported. Chagoya‐Morales did not obtain permission to reenter. In 2015, Chicago Police conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle in which Chagoya‐Morales was a passenger. The officers allegedly observed Deantes using her cell phone while driving. Approaching Deantes’s car, the officers smelled a strong odor of cannabis emanating from the vehicle, conducted a pat down search of Chagoya‐Morales, and recovered a small plastic bag containing marijuana. Chagoya‐Morales was charged with illegal reentry into the U.S., 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and 6 U.S.C. 202(4). Chagoya‐Morales filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the traffic stop was illegal and so that the government’s knowledge of his name and his immigration status should be suppressed as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The Seventh Circuit upheld the denial of the motion and the addition of 16 offense levels under the “crime of violence” enhancement in U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit police from requiring a person to identify himself, nor does it guarantee a defendant the right to conceal his identity during a criminal prosecution. Chagoya‐Morales’s prior 2008 conviction is a crime of violence under the guidelines. View "United States v. Chagoya-Morales" on Justia Law