Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioners Qi Hui Chen and his son, Yiyao Li Chen, natives and citizens of China, sought to overturn Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decisions affirming the Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision to deny their requests for asylum and restriction on removal. Qi Hui arrived in the United States in January 1997. He submitted his asylum application in September 2006. Yiyao Li came to the United States in October 2004. He submitted his asylum application in December 2007. Petitioners sought asylum and restriction on removal based on their political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Their applications were based on his opposition to the family-planning policy in China. Qi Hui testified that, at the end of 2006, he and Yiyao Li sent a letter to their church in China suggesting that the church should not endorse the birth-control policy anymore. Qi Hui testified that a few weeks after they sent the letter, his wife received a notice instructing the Chens to surrender. Although the Chens each filed their own asylum applications, they moved to consolidate their removal proceedings. The IJ held one hearing on both applications and issued one decision denying all forms of relief. The BIA affirmed. Although the Tenth Circuit agreed that the better practice would have been for the Chens to file separate petitions for review from the separate BIA decisions, under the circumstances in this case, it was sufficient to file a single petition for review and it was not in the interests of judicial economy to bifurcate the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court denied Petitioners' motion to bifurcate.

Petitioner Jose Luis Magallon-Almanza, a native of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order of removal. In the proceedings before the IJ, Petitioner conceded he was removable, but sought a cancellation of removal. The IJ found Petitioner did not meet either of these requirements and therefore denied relief and ordered him removed to Mexico. The BIA examined the evidence of hardship to Petitioner’s United States citizen children and agreed with the IJ that Petitioner did not establish they would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed to Mexico. The BIA also summarily rejected Petitioner’s argument that the IJ applied the wrong legal standards in analyzing his evidence of hardship. The BIA affirmed the IJ's order of removal. The Tenth Circuit's review of the IJ's decision showed no support for Petitioner's arguments raised on appeal. The Court therefore affirmed the IJ's and BIA's decisions.

Petitioner Jean Paul Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility. Petitioner entered the United States on a B-2 visitor visa and overstayed his visit. Nearly twenty years later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with remaining in this country without authorization. Petitioner conceded he was removable, but he sought several forms of relief, including adjustment of status. At a hearing, Petitioner testified that he came to this country when he was nine years old and had since been convicted of various crimes as a juvenile and adult, but was attempting to turn his life around. Due to his criminal convictions, however, in particular, two petty theft offenses and two controlled substance violations, the IJ concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for adjustment of status or a waiver of inadmissibility. Alternatively, the IJ ruled that even if Petitioner was eligible for adjustment of status, he did not warrant such discretionary relief because his extensive criminal record outweighed the positive attributes in his case, and there was no evidence of rehabilitation. The IJ thus ordered Petitioner removed to Mexico. The BIA affirmed. Finding that Petitioner characterized his argument "as one based on due process, but he cannot transform his challenge to the BIA’s denial of discretionary relief into a claim of constitutional magnitude for the simple reason that he had no due process interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." The Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction for further review and dismissed the case.

Petitioner Omar Garcia-Tinoco, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Bureau of Immigration Appeals' (BIA's) decision dismissing his appeal of a removal order. Petitioner entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994. Five years later, he pled guilty in Colorado to possession of cocaine. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings against him. He appeared before an immigration judge (IJ) and conceded that he was in the country illegally, but contested removal on the basis of his controlled-substance conviction because he was "in the process of withdrawing his guilty plea pursuant to a violation of his constitutional rights." To that end, Petitioner filed a post-conviction petition in state court, arguing that his guilty plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion and ordered Petitioner removed. The BIA affirmed, stating that the IJ was not required to grant a continuance because Petitioner's "collateral attack upon his conviction d[id] not … negate its validity." Petitioner asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the decision of the IJ and hold that he established good cause for a continuance. Upon review, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the case: "constitutional infirmities in collateral proceedings are 'categorically' beyond the scope of [the Court's] review."

Defendant-appellant Dennis Enriquez Lopez-Avila was charged with unlawful re-entry after deportation following an aggravated felony conviction. Defendant entered a guilty plea after reaching an agreement with the prosecution. The district court rejected Defendant's request for a sentence below that calculated under the advisory guidelines and sentenced him to thirty-seven months' imprisonment. Defendant argued on appeal that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court erroneously concluded that it could not consider the disparities created by the existence of fast-track programs when determining his sentence. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Defendant presented a "generalized argument" which alone is not sufficient to justify a variance from the sentencing guidelines because of different sentencing guidelines for fast-track programs. Therefore, the Court rejected Defendant's claim of error and affirmed the district court's decision.

Petitioner Abidan Gedioni Pacaja Vicente, a Guatemalan citizen, sought judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that affirmed the Immigration Judge's (IJ) removal order against him. Both denied his claims for asylum, restriction on removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At the IJ hearing, Petitioner testified that he was afraid of guerrilla violence against himself and his family in his home country dating as far back as 2002. The IJ first concluded Petitioner's asylum application was untimely and further determined that Petitioner had not established extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. In an alternative ruling, the IJ denied Petitioner's petition because he failed to establish a nexus between the 2002 event and either a political opinion or membership in a particular social group. The BIA affirmed on the latter ground. Upon review of the IJ and BIA record, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proof to overcome the removal order against him. The Court denied Petitioner's request for review.

Petitioner Arther Deyke Kasonso petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying his motion for reconsideration. His petition raised a single, narrow issue: whether the BIA abused its discretion in declining to apply the "disfavored group analysis" adopted by some of the other circuits, to determine whether Petitioner was entitled to restriction on removal. Petitioner, a native and citizen of Indonesia, entered the United States in 1994 on a non-immigrant visa and overstayed his six-month authorization. He received a notice to appear, conceded removability, and filed applications for asylum, restriction on removal, and relieve under the Convention Against Torture. He alleged past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution in Indonesia because he is a Christian. After a hearing, an immigration judge denied his applications for relief from removal, but granted him voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed his appeal. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration and request to reopen his case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that Petitioner did not argue that the BIA failed to follow its established policy to apply Tenth Circuit precedent or misapplied that law in his case. Nor did he provide any other basis for us to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the BIA's decision and dismissed Petitioner's request for review.

Petitioner Sushma KC sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen or reconsider its previous decision denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). After arriving in this country, KC filed timely applications for asylum, but on June 23, 2008, an immigration judge (IJ) denied her applications, and ordered her to voluntarily depart or be removed to her native Nepal. In his oral decision, the IJ noted the threats she received: "the most recent and graphic of them was that her head would be cut off [by Maoist insurgents] unless she paid 300,000 rupees." The IJ concluded, however, that KC failed to satisfy the "one central reason" test (see 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(i)) which required showing that one of the central reasons the Maoists targeted her was because of her political beliefs. KC appealed to the BIA, which upheld the IJ’s decision. The BIA concluded that "[t]he Immigration Judge reasonably determined based on the record as a whole that the Maoists’ demands for money were acts of extortion not related to the respondent’s political opinion." In addition, the BIA denied KC’s motion to remand her case to the IJ so that he could consider additional evidence concerning her husband’s disappearance. Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s analysis without further explanation, both to dismiss KC’s appeal and to deny reconsideration, the Tenth Circuit held that the BIA’s decision lacked "rational explanation." Accordingly, the Court held that the BIA abused its discretion, and remanded the case for further consideration. The Court affirmed the BIA in all other respects.

Appellant Gabriela Cordova-Soto petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(5). Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States as a child and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991 at the age of 13. In 2005, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Appellant charging her as removable on three grounds: (1) as an aggravated felon; (2) as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude; and (3) as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. Appellant had three Kansas state-law convictions, including a 2005 conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a suspended jail term of twenty months and eighteen months' probation. Appellant was found in 2010 in Wichita, Kansas and identified as an alien who had previously been removed. No criminal charges for illegal reentry were lodged against her, but DHS issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, advising Appellant that she was subject to removal. Appellant argued to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) her underlying removal order was not lawful; and (2) her reentry into the United States after her previous removal was not illegal. On these bases she maintained that reinstatement of her previous removal order was precluded. Upon review of the DHS's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded Appellant failed to establish that DHS misconstrued the meaning of "reenters the United States illegally" in Sec. 1231 (a)(5): she was removed from the United States in 2005, and she admittedly reentered the country without the Attorney General's authorization shortly thereafter. Because she could not have entered the United States legally at that time, her reentry was illegal and she was therefore subject to reinstatement of her previous removal order. Accordingly, the Court denied Appellant's petition for review.

Mexican national Defendant-Appellant Nicolas Cobos-Chachas pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation. At sentencing, the district court varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced him to thirty-eight months' imprisonment, which was three months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. Defendant challenged the length of his sentence as substantively unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors listed in the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Mr. Cobos-Chachas' own perception that the sentencing factors compel[ed] a more marked variance [did] not rebut the presumption that his below-guideline sentence [was] substantively reasonable." Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.