Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after a prior deportation and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the prior deportation order was fundamentally unfair. The court concluded that defendant had shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies by appealing the IJ's adverse ruling to the BIA. Defendant failed, however, to show that an error or obstacle related to his deportation proceedings improperly deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review. Because 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) must all be satisfied either directly or constructively, the court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss and his conviction without addressing the merits of his argument. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Villalobos" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, alleged that the Arizona crime of conviction, "attempt to commit smuggling" in violation of A.R.S. 13-2319, did not categorically fit the federal definition of an alien smuggling offense and thus ought not to have triggered a sixteen-level sentencing guidelines enhancement. On the merits, the parties agreed that defendant was improperly sentenced. However, the issue on appeal was the proper appellate remedy for defendant who was entitled to a resentencing but, having been deported, was unable to be present for a resentencing hearing. The court affirmed the sentence without prejudice, pursuant to United States v. Plancarte-Alvarez, to a later request by defendant, if and when he should return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at resentencing, that his previous sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced in light of this opinion. View "United States v. Aguilar-Reyes" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Tunisia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's order finding him removable because his July 2010 conviction for violating a Kansas drug paraphernalia statute was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The court denied the petition, concluding that the BIA correctly concluded that a conviction for violating the Kansas paraphernalia statute was, categorically, related to a controlled substance within the meaning of section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and use of the modified categorical approach as urged by petitioner was unnecessary; the court rejected petitioner's premise that Matter of Paulus was controlling agency authority the BIA arbitrarily ignored; and it was not error to admit and rely on evidence outside the record of conviction where the BIA concluded that the personal use exception did not apply. View "Mellouli v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Moreno, born in Mexico in 1971, was adopted by a U.S. citizen at age nine. New Mexico issued a birth certificate, indicating a birth place of Mexico. In the 1990s, Moreno was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and of false imprisonment. In 2006, she was deported, after an immigration judge, the Board of Appeals, and the Fifth Circuit found that she was not a U.S. citizen. She returned to the U.S. in 2007 and obtained a passport, listing her place of birth as New Mexico. In 2008, the passport was confiscated by Border Patrol, but it was never revoked. She was released pending investigation. In 2011, DHS informed her that she was not a citizen. When she arrived in St. Thomas after a cruise, she told immigration officers that she was a U.S. citizen and presented her New Mexico driver’s license and a copy of her U.S. passport. Moreno was charged with falsely representing herself to be a citizen, 18 U.S.C. 911. On the night before trial, the government disclosed a DHS report concluding that the passport was valid but recommending investigation into her citizenship. Moreno did not accept a continuance. The district court did not admit the documents into evidence, finding that the non-exculpatory information had been previously disclosed. The court also declined to admit an FBI report, listing her citizenship as “United States,” and rejected an argument that the passport was conclusive evidence of citizenship. Moreno was sentenced to 29 months. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that under 22 U.S.C. 2705, a passport constitutes conclusive proof of citizenship only if issued to a U.S. citizen. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of conspiracy to transport aliens who unlawfully came to or entered the United States and three counts of transporting such aliens, in each case for financial gain. The court held that the admission of the forms filled out by Border Patrol agents did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court held, however, that the district court erred in admitting the forms under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay because this exception did not apply to records of government agencies. Here, the aliens' statements that they were in the United States illegally did not qualify as public records. The district court's error in admitting such statements did not substantially affect the verdict and, therefore, was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Petitioner Elia Ibarra was ordered removed by the Department of Homeland Security for a Colorado conviction on child abuse. The events leading up to her conviction were unclear, but it was undisputed that petitioner's children were unintentionally left home alone while she was at work. No child was injured. Petitioner requested discretionary relief from removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge hearing petitioner's case decided that she was ineligible cancellation of removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit to review the immigration judge's decision that found her Colorado conviction for "child abuse-negligence-no injury" was the same as (or close enough to be categorically considered) "child abuse, neglect or abandonment" as codified under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with petitioner that the Board of Immigration Appeals' then-current interpretation of "child abuse, neglect and abandonment" extended the full range of conduct criminalized by the Colorado statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed the BIA's decision rendering petitioner ineligible for discretionary cancellation of removal. View "Ibarra v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because neither defendant's identity nor his INS file were suppressible, although the court concluded that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment in stopping defendant. Accordingly, the court was bound by precedent and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico admitted to the United States in 1976 as a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's decision that he was ineligible for relief from removal under former Immigration and Naturalization Act 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), because his conviction for an aggravated felony was the result of a trial. The court concluded that Vartelas v. Holder made it clear that the essential inquiry of retroactivity analysis was to determine whether the new law attached new legal consequences to completed conduct and that evidence regarding reliance was not required to prove that a new law was impermissibly retroactive. The repeal of section 212(c) relief impermissibly attached new legal consequences to the trial convictions of aliens like petitioner by rendering these aliens ineligible for relief as a result of convictions that pre-dated the repeal of section 212(c). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to robbery after illegally reentering the United States. At issue on appeal was whether the district court plainly erred by sentencing defendant to, inter alia, a three-year term of supervised release even though U.S.S.G. 5D1.1(c) provided that district courts "ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which... the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment." The court held that the district court adequately explained why it sentenced defendant to a term of supervised release where "an added measure of deterrence and protection" was needed in defendant's case. Even assuming arguendo that the district court erred by not adequately explaining its reasons for imposing a term of supervised release on defendant, in the circumstances presented here, it did not "plainly err" because the alleged error did not affect his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alvarado" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of illegal reentry. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2); the district court abused its discretion in granting the government's motion to reopen its case-in-chief to introduce defendant's mother's naturalization certificate; and defendant was clearly prejudiced by the district court's leniency in allowing the prosecution to fill the gaps it had left in its case. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing into whether the prosecution's failure to disclose the certificate in discovery or at any point before the proofs had closed was willful; and, if it was willful, the district court shall impose appropriate sanctions. View "United States v. Hernandez-Meza" on Justia Law