Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied a petition for rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel: (1) reversed a judgment of the district court granting Petitioner's habeas petition challenging his continued immigration detention after an initial bond hearing; and (2) held that due process does not require a second bond hearing.Judge Paez issued a statement regarding the court's denial. Judge Paez joined by Judges Murguia, Wardlaw, Gould, Berzon, Koh, Sung, Sanchez, H.A. Thomas, Mendoza, and Desai, wrote that the panel opinion conflicts with Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). View "AROLDO RODRIGUEZ DIAZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, ET AL" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) to deny Petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that the IJ's and BIA's decisions were supported by substantial evidence.Petitioner, a member of Ecuador's Quchua indigenous group, went before the IJ seeking to avoid removal through applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The IJ denied all three forms of relief and ordered Petitioner's removal to Ecuador. The BIA affirmed the IJ's denial of relief on the merits. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Petitioner's application for asylum was appropriately denied, and therefore, withholding of removal was also appropriately denied. View "Caz v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined No. 21-6043 2 to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Petitioner argued that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application.   The Second Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded. The court explained that it agrees with Petitioner that the BIA improperly imposed a heightened standard when evaluating whether Petitioner was prejudiced by prior counsel’s deficient performance. The court explained that on remand, the BIA should differentiate between two types of hardship evidence presented by Petitioner in his appeal and motion to remand: (1) hardship evidence that was available to prior counsel and (2) evidence that was not previously available to prior counsel, for which Petitioner must show that the evidence “would likely change the result in the case.” View "Paucar v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2016, Nerio and her minor daughter sought admission to the U.S. without the required authorization. They applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on Nerio’s fear that her partner’s nephew, Walter, would harm them if they returned. Nerio testified that she and her partner, Yuny, have been together for 10 years. Around a year after they met, Nerio became pregnant. Yuny left Guatemala in 2009, but Nerio continued living with, and later near, Yuny’s family. Walter considered her as his “inferior” based on Nerio’s indigenous heritage, refusing to treat her as family. She further testified that around 2015, Walter began trying to physically harm her. Twice that year, he tried to hit her with his motorcycle. In February 2016, he shot at her with a rifle. Nerio obtained a protective order but did not press criminal charges because of family pressure.The Seventh Circuit upheld the denial of relief, finding that substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s determination that Nerio failed to establish that the Guatemalan government is unable or unwilling to protect her. The IJ reasonably weighed the generalized country conditions report against Nerio’s specific testimony. View "Nerio Perez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled that Petitioner is removable as an aggravated felon and denied his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner petitions for review, arguing that his Massachusetts conviction for armed robbery does not constitute a “theft offense” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G) and therefore is not an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).   The Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition in part and granted in part. The court rejected Petitioner’s argument that armed robbery does not constitute a “theft offense” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. Section 1101(a)(43)(G). However, the court agreed with the parties that a remand to the BIA is nevertheless required. The Attorney General has issued an intervening decision that might impact Petitioner’s request for withholding of removal, and the BIA should have the opportunity to consider the effect of that decision. The court wrote that Petitioner was sentenced to less than five years in prison. His aggravated felony conviction, therefore, does not per se constitute a particularly serious crime with respect to withholding of removal. View "Mucktaru Kemokai v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

In 1992, Pesikan a six-year-old citizen of Bosnia, along with his mother, fled Bosnia. In 1998, they entered the U.S. as refugees and gained lawful permanent resident status. In 2017, Pesikan caused a car accident. A responding officer found a half-consumed bottle of whiskey on Pesikan’s driver’s seat and marijuana in the door pocket. A blood test of Pesikan revealed the presence of cocaine, marijuana, alprazolam, and a ,054 blood alcohol content. Pesikan was convicted in Pennsylvania of DUI six counts; the court merged the DUI counts into Count 2–for driving while under the influence of marijuana.Pesikan was charged with removability as an alien convicted of violating a law relating to a controlled substance, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which asks whether a noncitizen has been convicted of a violation of any law relating to a federally controlled substance. Pesikan argued that, applying the categorical approach to comparing state and federal crimes, Pennsylvania’s DUI statute is broader than the federal law because it allows for convictions based on the use of substances that are not federally controlled. The IJ held that the Pennsylvania statute is divisible, applied the modified categorical approach, and denied a motion to terminate. The BIA dismissed Pesikan’s appeal. The Third Circuit granted a petition for review. Because the identity of the specific controlled substance is not an element of the Pennsylvania DUI statute, that statute is indivisible and cannot serve as the basis for Pesikan’s removal. View "Pesikan v. Attorney General United States" on Justia Law

Defendant a citizen of Mexico, has been deported from the United States repeatedly over the past three decades. The list of crimes he has committed in the United States is extensive. Most recently, Defendant pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after a prior deportation. At the time of this offense, Defendant was 51 years old, but had only spent one year of his adult life in Mexico, his country of citizenship. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant’s recommended range spanned from 3 years and 10 months (46 months) to 4 years and 9 months (57 months). The district court sentenced Defendant to 6 years (72 months). Defendant challenged his sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Government concedes that the district court mistakenly counted six prior theft convictions when there were only four and mistakenly suggested that Defendant had served 7 years for a 1991 vehicle burglary conviction when he actually served 10 months of the 7-year sentence. These, the Government admits, were obvious errors. Yet the Government argues, and we agree, that these misstatements did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights. Nor did they impugn the fairness, integrity, or reputation of the proceedings. Further, the court wrote it has previously affirmed the substantive reasonableness of a 72-month sentence for illegal re-entry. Thus, the court concluded that this sentence was substantively reasonable, as well. View "USA v. Recio-Rosas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision dismissing Sandra St. John's appeal from the judgment of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her statutory motion to reopen, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the agency's denial of St. John's statutory motion to reopen.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against St. John based on her conviction for mayhem in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. After going into ICE custody, St. John filed a motion in the Massachusetts superior court asking it to vacate her mayhem conviction and grant a new trial on ineffective assistance of trial grounds. St. John then moved for reopening of her removal proceedings on the grounds that her motion to vacate had rendered the mayhem conviction nonfinal for immigration purposes. The IJ denied the motion, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the agency did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the order of removal based on final criminal convictions. View "St. John v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegally reentering the country after a previous deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326(a) & (b)(2). He claimed that the district court wrongly denied his request for a jury instruction about duress and inappropriately applied an enhancement to his sentence for obstruction of justice. Mora argues that the district court’s finding did not address all the elements of perjury. The district court stated that “this Defendant lied under oath to that jury” and that “he obstructed justice.” Defendant posits that this does not address whether the lie was willful or material.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the defendant must present proof of each element to receive a jury instruction on duress. The court wrote that even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendant, he has not presented proof that he was in danger at the moment of his offense. The court reasoned that there is no reason to believe that he was detained, followed, or surveilled in the interim between his abduction and the commission of the offense.   Further, the court explained that the obstruction of justice enhancement applies if “the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and . . . the obstructive conduct related to . . . the defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct.” The court wrote that it found that the district court’s finding “encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury.” View "USA v. Mora-Carrillo" on Justia Law

Petitioner has been a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States since 2003. Since that time, he has been convicted of various crimes, including theft, criminal trespass, a DUI, and, as relevant here, possession of heroin in violation of Oregon law. After he received a notice to appear (NTA) initiating removal proceedings, Petitioner applied for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge (IJ) denied the petition and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal.   The Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review. The court held that the agency did not err in concluding that the stop-time rule set forth in 8 U.S.C. Section 1229b(d)(1)(B), which terminates accrual of the requisite seven years of continuous physical presence, is calculated from the date a petitioner committed the criminal offense that rendered him removable, rather than the date he was convicted. A lawful permanent resident becomes removable once he is convicted of a qualifying offense, and if the offense is committed within seven years of being admitted into the United States, the Attorney General lacks discretion to cancel removal. Here, Petitioner committed the offense a few months shy of satisfying the seven-year continuous residence requirement, but the conviction became final outside the statutory seven-year period. The panel held that the agency did not err in deciding that the stop-time rule is calculated from the date Petitioner committed the criminal offense that rendered him removable, rather than the date he was convicted. View "RUDNITSKYY V. GARLAND" on Justia Law