Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Cisneros came to the U.S. in 1988 at age 17 and stayed after the expiration of his visa. In 1995, he married U.S. citizen; his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident. They divorced in 2002. Cisneros consistently supported his ex-wife and the couple’s children and now has grandchildren. He has a history of alcoholism. In 2012, Cisneros committed unarmed robbery, an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), resulting in loss of his legal permanent resident status and making him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), because robbery is a crime of moral turpitude. Cisneros applied for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. 1182(h)(1)(B), which gives the Attorney General the discretionary power to waive inadmissibility for the spouse, parent, or child of a U.S. citizen who would suffer “extreme hardship” if removed. An immigration judge granted Cisneros’s application. DHS appealed; the BIA revoked the waiver. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, noting that its authority extends only to legal or constitutional issues, not discretionary determinations. View "Cisneros v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Arias came to the U.S. without authorization in 2000. She has raised three children here and has consistently paid income tax. Her longtime employer calls her an “excellent employee.” Her sole criminal conviction, falsely using a social security number to work (42 U.S.C. 408(a)(7)(B)), was classified as a “crime involving moral turpitude” by the BIA, which disqualified Arias from seeking discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The Seventh Circuit remanded for reconsideration. Many violations of the cited statute would amount to crimes involving moral turpitude, but for both legal and pragmatic reasons, it is unlikely that every violation of the statute necessarily qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude. The BIA misapplied the framework for identifying crimes involving moral turpitude that it was bound to apply at the time of its decision; after the BIA’s decision, the Attorney General vacated that framework in its entirety. The court noted the current vacuum of authoritative guidance on how the Board should determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude. View "Arias v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident alien, pleaded guilty to an indictment alleging larceny of a motor vehicle. Defendant later moved to withdraw the guilty plea and vacate the conviction, arguing that the judge accepted his plea without advising him that the guilty plea might have the consequences of exclusion from admission to the United States. The judge denied the motion. The Appellate Court affirmed, concluding (1) the Commonwealth failed to prove that Defendant received the required warning regarding exclusion from admission to the United States; but (2) Defendant failed to show that he faced the consequence of exclusion. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) a defendant satisfies the burden of showing that his conviction may have the consequences of exclusion from admission to the United States by showing that he has a bona fide desire to leave the country and reenter and that, if he were to do so, there would be a substantial risk that he would be excluded from admission because of his conviction; and (2) Defendant here met this burden, and because Defendant was not warned of this consequence during his plea colloquy, his conviction must be vacated. View "Commonwealth v. Valdez" on Justia Law

Paz-Giron entered the U.S. without authorization around 1985 when he was 15 years old. Between 1998 and 2001, he was convicted four times in California for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was removed to Mexico in 2002. Paz-Giron returned to the U.S. and, in January 2013, he was again convicted of driving under the influence. Two months later he pleaded guilty to identity theft to obtain medical services, an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) because it involved more than $10,000 in loss to the victim. In 2015 he was convicted of another DUI. In 2015 Paz-Giron was indicted and pled guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States after removal. He and was sentenced to 24 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence. The district court misapplied an 8-level upward adjustment in the Sentencing Guidelines for aliens who unlawfully remain in the U.S. after being convicted of an aggravated felony, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Paz-Giron was removed in 2002, long before he committed the aggravated felony of identity theft. View "United States v. Paz-Giron" on Justia Law

Orona‐Ibarra, a citizen of Mexico, was removed from the United States following a 2007 Illinois drug conviction. He reentered the U.S., in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. He was arrested on unrelated charges in Texas and was “found” by immigration officials while in custody in Texas. He was transferred from Texas to the Central District of Illinois. A person violates section 1326 in any location in the United States where she is “found.” Venue in such cases is proper wherever in the United States the violation may occur or where the accused person “may be apprehended,” 8 U.S.C. 1329. Illegal re‐entry is a “continuing offense” that is committed from the moment the defendant reenters the country until federal immigration agents gain actual (not just constructive) knowledge of her presence, her identity, and her unlawful immigration status. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Orona‐Ibarra’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. Orona‐Ibarra did not commit any element of the crime in Illinois: he did not reenter the country in Illinois, he was not “found” in Illinois, and he was not “apprehended” in Illinois. View "United States v. Orona-Ibarra" on Justia Law

In 2009, Javier, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. In 2014 Javier was convicted, in Pennsylvania, for carrying a firearm in public and for making terroristic threats. An IJ concluded that Javier was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as an alien convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” based on his conviction for terroristic threats and also removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C) as an alien convicted of a “firearm offense.” The BIA affirmed, based solely on Javier’s terroristic threats conviction, stating that the offense defined by 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 2706(a)(1) involves “an intentional action whose goal is to inflict [] psychological distress [that follows an invasion of the victim’s sense of personal security which] violates the norms of society to such a degree as to constitute moral turpitude.” The BIA concluded that it “need not address” the firearms conviction. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal. A threat communicated with a specific intent to terrorize is an act “accompanied by a vicious motive or a corrupt mind” so as to be categorically morally turpitudinous. View "Javier v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty in 2011 to aiding and abetting marriage fraud, 18 U.S.C.1546(a), and was sentenced to three years in prison. Marriage fraud is an aggravated felony if the defendant is sentenced to at least 12 months in prison, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(P); a noncitizen convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and ineligible for cancellation of removal, asylum, or naturalization. The defendant unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea, claiming that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not warned that pleading guilty would be virtually certain to result in his deportation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, noting that one of the defense attorneys, an immigration specialist, had explained a possible, but barely viable, defense to the deportation that would inevitably follow his conviction, so the defendant had “full knowledge of the great risk that he faced of deportation,” and “actively strategized with his attorneys.” The court noted that the defendant, currently a fugitive, avoided conviction for mortgage fraud by pleading guilty to marriage fraud. He would have been likely to receive a longer prison sentence if convicted after a trial. View "United States v. Chezan" on Justia Law

Petitioner conceded removeability, but cancellation as a nonpermanent resident under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). At issue is whether petitioner's conviction for a prior Texas misdemeanor assault qualifies as a "crime of moral turpitude" that makes him ineligible for cancellation. The Supreme Court held in Mathis v. United States that, under the modified categorical approach, a court may look to certain documents, including the indictment and the judgment, to narrow an offense that otherwise would not be a categorical match with an enumerated offense. With Mathis holding that a statute like Texas’s assault offense that merely offers alternative means of committing an offense does not allow application of the modified categorical approach, the court is back to the general categorical inquiry about which the parties, the immigration judge, and the Board agree. Texas’s assault statute can be committed by mere reckless conduct and thus does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, which requires a more culpable mental state. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for reconsideration. View "Gomez-Perez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2010, Respondent, a citizen of Ecuador, pled not guilty on an agreed statement of facts and was found guilty of second-degree child abuse. In 2013, Respondent filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him regarding the immigration consequences he could face as a result of conviction. The coram nobis court denied the petition. The Court of Special Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that Respondent established that trial counsel did not provide him with the correct “available advice” about the risk of deportation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that trial counsel did not perform in a constitutionally deficient manner in advising Respondent as to the immigration consequences of a conviction for second-degree child abuse. View "State v. Sanmartin Prado" on Justia Law

Shuti, from Albania, entered the U.S. as a permanent resident in 2008 at age 13. In 2014, Shuti and some friends committed a “larceny of marijuana.” Shuti pleaded guilty to felony unarmed robbery, defined as “larceny of any money or other property” accomplished by “force or violence against any person” or “assault[ing] or put[ting] the person in fear.” Mich. Comp. Laws 750.530. Shuti was sentenced to more than two years in prison. DHS initiated removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2). A non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony after admission is ineligible for most discretionary relief; “aggravated felony” is defined as including “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18 ....) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). The cross-referenced definition of “crime of violence” is: an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used. Shuti unsuccessfully applied for discretionary relief, claiming that his attorney “never discussed” the immigration consequences of his plea. The BIA affirmed, stating that unarmed robbery was “categorically a crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual definition of “violent felony,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), void for vagueness. The BIA concluded that the void-for-vagueness doctrine did not apply to “civil” deportations. The Sixth Circuit vacated the order of removal, concluding that the wide-ranging inquiry required by the two statutory phrases was the same, so the immigration code’s residual clause is also unconstitutionally vague. View "Shuti v. Lynch" on Justia Law