Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant and his wife were indicted on charges of marriage fraud, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325(c), and making a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement to DHS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's motion to dismiss his marriage fraud indictment on statute of limitations grounds. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss and reversed the judgment because the plain meaning of section 1325(c) dictated that the crime of marriage fraud was complete on the date of marriage and, as a result, the government's indictment was time-barred. View "United States v. Roja" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a national of India and lawful permanent resident in the United States, pled guilty to one count of receiving Medicare kickbacks and one count of income tax evasion. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his tax evasion conviction on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his criminal defense attorney's advice as to the deportation consequences of pleading guilty to that count. The court concluded, based on the entire record, that the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner failed to establish that, if counsel had recommended withdrawal of the plea, petitioner would have accepted that recommendation in order to go to trial. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the petition was untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chhabra v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. The court held that it was error to rule that defendant's third degree aggravated assault conviction constituted a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and apply the 16-level increase to the base offense level. The error was not harmless where the district court did not clearly state that it would impose the same sentence if there had not been a 16-level enhancement based on the prior crime of violence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Martinez-Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, appealed his conviction for being an alien who, after having been removed on five occasions, was "found in" the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Defendant had already been convicted in 2009 for violating section 1326 based on the same 2006 removal order that formed the predicate for the conviction in this case. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government introduced sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction where it introduced ample proof of the statutory elements at trial and defendant did not contend otherwise; the court rejected defendant's contention that, in analyzing his double jeopardy defense, the court was limited to reviewing the evidence presented by the jury; there was no error, much less plain error, in the district court's refusal to vacate defendant's conviction based on a double jeopardy defense he never raised; and an immigration officer's failure to inform him of his ability to request withdrawal of his application for admission did not violate his due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanchez-Aguilar" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. At issue was whether aliens who were removable, but not yet subject to a removal order, were "in custody" for purposes of section 2241. The court held that they were not. In this case, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's habeas petition because she was not in custody for purposes of section 2241. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying the petition and dismissed the case. View "Veltmann-Barragan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to deny his request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ and BIA concluded that petitioner was subject to removal and that he was not entitled to relief under the CAT because he had failed to prove that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured in Mexico. The court denied the petition for relief, concluding that the BIA committed no error of law; rejected defendant's argument that his removal to Mexico would violate his right to due process; and directed the court to seal records of petitioner's guilty plea and those portions of the record that contained information about the identity and whereabouts of petitioner's family. View "Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty to possession of a concealed dangerous weapon and possession of marijuana in 2004, in violation of Maryland law. In 2008, defendant was found guilty of driving without a valid license. Two years later, defendant pled guilty to assault in the second degree and was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement shortly after sentencing. In 2011, defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry after removal. The parties disputed whether defendant's 2004 probation-before-judgment disposition triggered a four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). The court held that diversionary dispositions arising from guilty pleas - including defendant's probation before judgment disposition at issue here - constituted predicate convictions under section 2L1.2(b)(1)(D). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, challenging the district court's failure to order production of certain U.S. Border Patrol dispatch tapes. Without listening to the tapes, the district court concluded that defendant's showing of materiality was speculative. The tapes could have been crucial to defendant's ability to assess the reliability of the Border Patrol agent's testimony and to cross-examine him effectively. Moreover, the tapes were clearly relevant to defendant's location and the official restraint defense. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in excluding potentially exculpatory evidence. View "United States v. Muniz-Jaquez" on Justia Law

The defendant’s sentence, under the heading “additional imprisonment terms,” states that the “defendant is to be turned over to the proper immigration authorities for deportation proceedings upon completion of term of incarceration. If deported, defendant is to remain outside the United States and is not to return without the written consent of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” The Seventh Circuit struck the provision as unauthorized. Only an immigration judge may order removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(a)(3), unless the prosecutor and immigration officials request that the district judge hold a removal hearing, a request not made in this case. A district judge may order, as a condition of supervised release, that a defendant be turned over to immigration officials, but if there is no order of supervised release, as here, imposition of such a condition is ultra vires. The court noted that there is no need for the “added measure” in this case, because the defendant is an aggravated felon. An aggravated felon who is an alien is removable upon the completion of his prison sentence, removal proceedings must be begun before the end of his prison term, and he must be detained until completion, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(B), 1228(a)(1)-(2), (3)(A). View "United States v. Zamudio" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law