Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of a motion to reopen petitioner's deportation 23 years after the final deportation order. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to provide any material, previously unavailable evidence to justify reopening. The court also held that petitioner did not have a protected liberty interest in his motion to reopen, and his due-process claim failed. View "Mendias-Mendoza v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated defendant's sentence of 60 months in prison, nearly three times the top of the Guidelines range, after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegally reentering the United States after having been removed following a conviction for an aggravated felony. In the context of the Sentencing Commission's statistics for illegal reentry cases and all the circumstances here, the court was not persuaded that the justification offered by the district court was sufficient to support the magnitude of the variance. The court also held that there may have been factual errors in the district court's discussion of the record and the district court's reluctance to credit defendant's acceptance of responsibility (although it did so in the end) suggested that the district court may have conflated defendant's statements in mitigation with a failure to accept responsibility. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Singh" on Justia Law

After Son became a U.S. citizen in 2013, she filed a successful I-130 visa petition on Matushkina’s (her mother) behalf. A U.S. Consulate denied Matushkina's 2015 application for an immigrant visa based on a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 2009 determination, at the border, that she was inadmissible because Matushkina had not disclosed that her daughter was working in the U.S. in violation of her student visa, “a willful misrepresentation of a material fact,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). Matushkina immediately withdrew her application for admission. The CBP officer entered the inadmissibility finding in the electronic system. Matushkina’s nonimmigrant visa was canceled; she promptly left the U.S. Seven years later Matushkina and Son filed suit, alleging that the 2009 inadmissibility determination violated the Administrative Procedures Act and that the CBP officer violated provisions of the CBP Inspector’s Field Manual and “due process and notions of fundamental fairness.” The court dismissed for lack of standing, As an unadmitted alien, Matushkina had no legally protected right to enter the U.S. Son had no standing because she was not yet a citizen in 2009. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, on the merits, reasoning that the case was, in essence, a challenge to the visa denial, and that decision is not subject to judicial review. View "Matushkina v. Davies" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's conviction of attempted reentry of a removed alien. Defendant argued that his 2009 removal was invalid because his 1997 drug trafficking conviction under Wash. Rev. Code 69.50.401 was incorrectly determined to be an aggravated felony. The panel held that defendant's waiver of the right to seek judicial review was not considered and intelligent, and thus he was deprived of due process. Furthermore, defendant's prior drug trafficiking conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony under the categorical approach and could not be the basis for defendant's 2009 removal. Therefore, defendant satisfied all three elements of 8 U.S.C. 1326(d), and his collateral attack on the underlying deportation order should have been successful. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Valdivia-Flores" on Justia Law

The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) created a new nonimmigrant visa classification that permits immigrants who are victims of serious crimes and who assist law enforcement to apply for and receive a nonimmigrant visa called a U-visa. There is a statutory cap of 10,000 U-visas each fiscal year. Since 2009, the U-Visa backlog has increased from 21,138 to 177,340 pending applications. Calderon-Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the U.S. in 2002 and was the victim of an attack in 2014. He filed a petition for U Nonimmigrant Status in February 2015 and is waiting to be evaluated for the waiting list. In 2016, he sought a writ of mandamus, to compel Homeland Security to adjudicate his petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his suit. Ramirez did not set forth any facts that differentiate himself from other petitioners waiting ahead of him for adjudication. While there are instances when the government can and will expedite a petition, Ramirez failed to present a situation appropriate to warrant such an action. The court stated that the wait Ramirez faces is not unreasonable. View "Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum. The court held that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard for assessing asylum eligibility when it categorically held that additional proof of an existing claim did not establish changed circumstances. Accordingly, the court vacated the BIA's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zambrano v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Undercover officers attempting a controlled purchase of methamphetamine arrested Estrada upon finding meth in his pocket and a rifle and ammunition in his car. He pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Because of this conviction for an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii), Estrada—a green-card holder—was placed in removal proceedings. Estrada appeared later with counsel, who conceded Estrada’s removability. Noting the unavailability of other relief, the IJ ordered Estrada removed to Mexico. Estrada was deported in 2009. Six years later, law enforcement discovered Estrada in the United States. He was charged with illegal reentry following deportation, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a); (b)(2). Estrada moved to dismiss, by collateral attack on the underlying deportation order, arguing that the IJ violated his due process rights by failing to advise him of the possibility of discretionary relief from removal under section 212(h) and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denials of Estrada’s motions to dismiss. A defendant charged with unlawful reentry may not challenge the validity of his deportation order unless he demonstrates that: he exhausted administrative remedies; the deportation proceedings improperly deprived him of the opportunity for judicial review; and the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. Estrada had no constitutionally-protected liberty interest in securing discretionary relief and, therefore, cannot establish that the order was fundamentally unfair. View "United States v. Estrada" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of removal issued by DHS. Petitioner was removed without the benefit of a hearing on the basis that he entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program and waived his right to contest removal under the terms of that program. The court found that petitioner was admitted under the Visa Waiver Program based on the administrative record amassed by DHS; the evidence was sufficient to support DHS's claim that petitioner waived his right to a hearing prior to removal based on the manner of his entry, coupled with evidence of the admission process under the program; and, in the alternative, petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice if his waiver was not knowing and voluntary. View "Nardea v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's adverse credibility determination and denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner argued that he was persecuted in India because of his support of one of the country's opposition political parties. The panel held that the IJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence; the IJ's demeanor findings were sufficiently specific, and the Board and IJ provided specific and cogent reasons for why inaccuracies in petitioner's documentary evidence, and inconsistencies between his statements and other evidence of record, undermined his credibility; petitioner could not satisfy his burden of proving he was eligible for asylum and withholding of removal; and the Board's determination that petition was not entitled to protection under the CAT was supported by substantial evidence. View "Manes v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit expedited consideration of this bail appeal to consider Mario Ailon-Ailon’s argument that the government has misinterpreted the word “flee” as it appeared in 18 U.S.C. 3142(f)(2), resulting in his illegal pre-trial detention. He argued that involuntary removal by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) did not constitute flight of the sort that would justify detention. On initial consideration, a magistrate judge agreed and determined that Ailon-Ailon should not have been detained before trial. On review of the magistrate judge, the district court reversed, ordering that he be detained. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the plain meaning of “flee” refers to a volitional act rather than involuntary removal, and that the structure of the Bail Reform Act supported this plain-text reading. View "United States v. Ailon-Ailon" on Justia Law