Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Singh, born in Jamaica, has been a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 1975, married a U.S. citizen and raised three children. In operating a construction firm that bid on public works projects as a Minority Business Enterprise, Singh accepted kickbacks for falsely certifying that his business was serving as a subcontractor on government projects when, in fact, another did the work. When the company filed for bankruptcy in 2005, the scheme came to light. Singh was charged with failing to disclose all of the company’s accounts receivable on the bankruptcy petition, 18 U.S.C. 152(3). Singh pled guilty and agreed to restitution in the amount of $54,418.08. He was sentenced to 10 months. DHS initiated removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Immigration Judge entered an order of removal, which the BIA affirmed, finding that conviction under 152(3) categorically involves fraud and that the restitution order established that the offense caused loss to the trustee exceeding $10,000. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that the statute requires actual, not merely intended, loss. The court rejected an argument that 152(3) is a perjury offense that must meet the requirements for perjury-based aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(43)(S).View "Singh v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitioned for review of a decision from the BIA which upheld the IJ's determination that petitioner had committed a particularly serious crime, rendering him ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The BIA also affirmed the IJ's finding that conditions had changed in Lebanon such that it was no longer more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured upon his return. The court affirmed the IJ and BIA's determination that petitioner had committed a particularly serious crime by committing a complex mail fraud scheme to defraud victims of nearly $2 million and was therefore, not eligible for asylum or withholding removal. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that conditions in Lebanon had changed such that it was no longer more likely than not that petitioner would be tortured upon his return there. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Khalil-Salim v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of falsely representing himself to be a U.S. citizen in violation of 18 U.S.C. 911 and of committing identity theft in relation to a false claim of U.S. citizenship in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1028A. At issue was what could constitute a claim of citizenship under section 911. The court held that the "cumulative context" provided a substantial foundation for the jury's conclusion of willful misrepresentation and the jury's verdict was consistent with decisions in other circuits that required a direct claim of U.S. citizenship to sustain a conviction under section 911. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Pena" on Justia Law

After illegally reentering the United States for the seventh time, defendant was again charged with and pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2), and 6 U.S.C. 202 and 557. On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a downward variance in light of United States v. Jimenez-Perez where the lack of fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1. Further, defendant did not argue at sentencing for a downward variance on this ground and the district court committed no plain error in failing to comment sua sponte on the issue. View "United States v. Elodio-Benitez" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to illegal reentry after removal and subsequently appealed his 77-month prison sentence as substantively unreasonable. Given defendant's extensive criminal history and weak claim of cultural assimilation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to the bottom of the advisory guidelines range. The court also held that lack of a fast-track program was not a basis for a departure under U.S.S.G. 5K3.1 and the district court committed no plain error on that issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Paulino-Duarte" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA denying his application for voluntary departure. Petitioner was convicted for disorderly conduct involving prostitution under California Penal Code 647(b) and attempting to dissuade a witness or victim under California Penal Code 136.1(c). The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner's conviction under section 647(b) constituted a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because petitioner was convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, he was deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and the court denied his petition for review. View "Rohit v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to lying about his U.S. citizenship on a Firearms Transaction Record form which he completed while attempting to purchase a handgun. Defendant also pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Defendant appealed the district court's decision on his ineffective counsel claim where defendant claimed counsel failed to independently research and investigate the derivative citizenship defense. The court concluded that defendant's guilty pleas were not entered knowingly or voluntarily because counsel advised him without investigating derivative citizenship. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Juarez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Mendoza-Lopez" on Justia Law

The tenant moved into an apartment in 2004. The building later came under management by defendants. In 2008 tenant filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962, alleging that defendants conspired to harbor illegal aliens and to encourage or induce illegal aliens to reside in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). He claimed that the apartment complex fell into disrepair and that criminal activity went unreported, causing injury to his leasehold property. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. The "harboring" claim was properly dismissed; the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the conduct tended to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting the unlawful presence. With respect to the "inducing" claim, the court stated that it could not imagine that Congress contemplated that landlords and hotel and motel operators would be responsible for making complex legal determinations about who is permitted to live in this country, much less that they would be criminalized for an error in so doing.View "Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Props., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant arrived in the U.S. in 1985, at age three. He became a lawful permanent resident and submitted an Application for Naturalization (N-400). He orally went through the form at a Citizenship and Immigration Service office. He answered "No" to: "Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?" and "Have you ever sold or smuggled controlled substances, illegal drugs or narcotics?" His application was recommended and he was notified by N-445 of a mandatory oath ceremony. The N-445 contained questions to confirm that the applicant had maintained good moral character. Defendant again answered "No." He was naturalized in 2006. In fact, he had distributed cocaine 2004-2005, and, between the N-400 interview and the oath ceremony, was arrested for distributing cocaine and amphetamines. After pleading guilty to drug charges, defendant was convicted of making a material false statement to DHS (18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2)) and unlawfully applying for and obtaining naturalization (18 U.S.C. 1425(b)). The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that admission of form N-445 violated his right to confrontation; that admission of form N-445 under the public records exception to hearsay was error; and that repeated reference to his prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial. View "United States v. Lang" on Justia Law