Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and his sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court properly determined that defendant's 2007 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code 11378 was a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and the district court's imposition of supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Valdavinos-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge after deportation. Defendant claimed that the IJ failed to advise him about the availability of voluntary departure. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that an alien could not collaterally attack his removal order by claiming that an immigration judge failed to advise him about relief for which he was statutorily ineligible, even if the government did not introduce before the IJ noticeable documentation of the aggravated felony conviction that rendered him ineligible. The court also held that defendant's sentence was valid. View "United States v. Bustos-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law

This case arose from a finding that a lawful permanent resident of the United States' conviction of burglary of a vehicle under New Mexico's burglary statute rendered him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for committing a crime of violence. The court concluded that the burglary under the New Mexico statute did constitute a crime of violence where it entailed a significant likelihood that force would be used against another's property. Because the court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's remaining claims, the court dismissed them. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Lara, a citizen of Mexico, was 19 when he first entered the U.S. illegally in 1985. His wife and child joined him; they had three more children, each a citizen of the U.S. by birth. Lara was deported following a 1999 conviction for selling $50 worth of cocaine. In 2001, he unlawfully returned to the U.S., pled guilty to illegal reentry, and was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), which requires an offense level increase of 16 levels if, prior to deportation, the defendant is convicted of a drug offense that results in a term of imprisonment exceeding 13 months. Lara argued that he did not receive the sentence until his probation on the drug offense was revoked. The court found that he ultimately received a three-year sentence for the drug trafficking offense prior to deportation. The court also upheld the decision not to grant a downward departure under Note 8, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, which applies to unlawful entry if a defendant has “assimilated” to the local culture, noting that Lara did not move to the U.S. until he was an adult and has a lengthy criminal history. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Lara" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court convicting him of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326, following a conditional plea. While defendant's 1998 immigration proceedings were pending, he was arrested for robbery and detained in New York. Although he notified the INS of his new address, the INS did not properly process the address change and failed to notify defendant of his ongoing immigration proceedings, so that he was ordered removed in absentia. Defendant was removed to Jamaica but he subsequently returned to the United States. He was arrested again and indicted for illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was given no notice of the 1998 removal proceedings. Because the district court properly considered defendant's completed criminal conduct in ruling that the entry of the removal order against defendant in abstentia was not fundamentally unfair because there was no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained relief had he received notice of the removal proceeding and been present, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daley" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence on a conditional guilty plea for being an alien found in the United States following deportation. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the BIA did not err in finding defendant removeable based on his conviction for use of drug paraphernalia, which was a conviction "relating to a controlled substance" under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). The court held that the IJ did not violate due process by failing to inform defendant of the possibility of relief through a waiver of inadmissibility under section 1182(h). The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. View "United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration, arguing that his counsel was ineffective in failing to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Because petitioner could not demonstrate prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, he was not entitled to relief. View "Abraham v. United States" on Justia Law

Castilla entered the U.S. for a third time after two deportations and moved to Michigan, where Reyes lived. Reyes made and sold false identification documents to illegal immigrants. Castilla joined the operation. Reyes kept the work room locked, let the others live in the apartment-production facility, gave them false documents for themselves, provided them business cards and cell phones, and kept track of each associate’s sales in a notebook. In 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating. In 2010, executing a search warrant on the apartment, they found Castilla and others. In Castilla’s bedroom, agents found a box of his own fraudulent business cards, a manual with instructions for changing the ribbon on the Zebra card printer, a CD for the Zebra card printer, and a fraudulent driver’s license that was matched to a used Zebra printer ribbon. Convicted of conspiracy to produce and traffic fraudulent identification documents and for possession of document-making implements, Castilla was sentenced to 63 months. The district court applied the three-level managerial/supervisory role enhancement, USSG 3B1.1(b) and a nine-level enhancement under USSG 2L2.1(b)(2)(C), for the offense involving at least 100 documents. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Castilla-Lugo" on Justia Law

The government appealed from the district court's order suppressing evidence found following the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle driven by defendant. The vehicle stop was executed by two officers of the St. Regis Mohawk Police Department (SRMPD), one of whom was also cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer by ICE. The district court held that the vehicle stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked the authority to act as law enforcement officers at the time of the stop. The court held that the violation of the ICE policy requiring prior authorization did not affect the constitutionality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment and that the stop and subsequent search comported with the Fourth Amendment because they were justified by probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the district court. Because the court determined that the stop was a constitutional exercise of designated customs authority, the court did not decide whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of New York police authority. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law