Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged with importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. Section 952(a). Her lawyer told her that if she pleaded guilty, it was “very likely” that she would be deported. She nonetheless entered the plea. Defendant then learned that her offense did not just possibly make her deportable, it automatically did so. She then moved to withdraw her plea, alleging that if she had known the full scope of the immigration consequences of her plea, she would not have entered it. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and sentenced her. Defendant appealed. At issue is whether a lawyer’s warning of “very likely” deportation satisfies the right to effective assistance of counsel.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that when defense counsel tells an alien client that a conviction will have serious immigration consequences, including “very likely” deportation, that defendant has received sufficient advice to make an informed plea decision, as required by the Sixth Amendment. The court explained that there is some ambiguity about what specific words Defendant’s lawyer used when explaining to her the immigration consequences of the plea. But the district court’s factual finding—which is reviewed only for clear error—suggests the following bottom line: Defendant’s lawyer put her on notice of the risk of serious immigration consequences, including deportation. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea. View "USA v. Armendariz" on Justia Law

Petitioner is a Sudanese national born in 1991 in modern-day South Sudan. He entered the United States as a refugee in 2003. In 2012, following juvenile felony and misdemeanor convictions, the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings when Petitioner was convicted of attempted murder and unlawful firearm possession and sentenced to 264 months imprisonment. Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Petitioner ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because the latest conviction was an aggravated felony and a particularly serious crime. Petitioner appealed the denial of CAT relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed the appeal.   The Eighth Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review. The court explained that Petitioner presented no specific evidence that the government attacks “political opponents” because they were child soldiers in a civil war that ended before South Sudan’s independence. Next, the court wrote that it agrees with the BIA that Petitioner has not shown in his “hypothetical chain of events” that “it was more likely than not that each link in the chain would occur.” Moreover, the court found that even if Petitioner were incarcerated, he presented no evidence showing that conditions inside the prison would amount to torture. View "Mongong Deng v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Munoz, a citizen of Honduras, moved to Guatemala but never acquired lawful status there. She entered into a relationship with Mazariegos, with whom she had two daughters. Mazariegos began a relationship with another woman, Oneida. Munoz and her children left Guatemala for the United States. She applied for asylum, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), withholding of removal, section 1231(b)(3)(A), and relief under the Convention Against Torture. At her credible fear interview, Munoz stated that she was afraid of Oneida who had insulted and threatened her; she stated that she had not been physically harmed by anyone. She also stated that the police would protect her in Guatemala. She later claimed that she was the victim of domestic violence and asserted that the police would not help a foreigner. She feared the harassment would continue if she went to Honduras. She later changed her story and denied any physical violence but alleged kidnapping of her daughter.The IJ held that Munoz’s testimony was not credible based on the cumulative effect of the inconsistent, vague, and evasive testimony, and thus she did not meet her burden under the REAL ID Act; documentary evidence did not rehabilitate her claim. The BIA affirmed, agreeing that the testimony was inconsistent, implausible, and vague, and ordered removal. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the denial of relief to be supported by substantial evidence. View "Munoz-Rivera v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the appointment and removal process for Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). These officials exercise significant authority within our immigration system, making them officers under the Appointments Clause.   The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. The panel rejected Petitioner’s suggestion that Immigration Judges and BIA members are principal officers who, under the Appointments Clause of Article II, must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Rather, the panel concluded that they are inferior officers (whose appointment may be vested in the head of a department) because the Attorney General ultimately directs and supervises their work. Thus, the panel held that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to vest their appointment in the Attorney General. The panel next held that the removal process for Immigration Judges and BIA members satisfies Article II, which requires that officers remain accountable to the President by limiting restrictions on the removal of the President’s subordinates. The panel explained that Attorney General has the power to remove Immigration Judges and BIA members, and that nothing restricts the Attorney General’s ability to remove them. Thus, these officers remain dependent on the Attorney General for their positions—and by extension, on the President. View "FORTUNATO AMADOR DUENAS V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the order of the immigration judge (IJ) denying Petitioner's application for asylum and withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(A), 1231(b)(3)(A), as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), holding that there was no error below.Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge (IJ) found her removable and directed El Salvador as the country for removal. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) sufficient evidence supported the IJ's factual findings, and the BIA committed no errors of law in its ruling; and (2) Petitioner waived her claim regarding the BIA's denial of CAT relief. View "Montoya-Lopez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Africa who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2012, pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft predicated on wire fraud. In the plea agreement, Petitioner admitted that she “aided and abetted” her mother in the mother’s scheme of “defrauding” the State of California of $475,350.28.The Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") charged Petitioner as removable, characterizing her conviction as a conviction for an offense involving “fraud or deceit” with a loss to the victim exceeding $10,000, thus qualifying as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). In so holding, the BIA determined that the elements of the identity theft offense included a reference in the alternative to several qualifying felony offenses, and required as an element that the identity theft be committed “during and in relation to” one of the other qualifying felonies.Petitioner appealed, arguing her conviction did not qualify under the categorical approach as an offense involving fraud or deceit. She also sought relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). An immigration judge rejected Petitioner's arguments, as did the BIA. Petitioner appealed.On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held that the BIA appeals did not err in concluding that Petitioner's conviction was a qualifying aggravated felony based on her express admission that she had aided and abetted a scheme to defraud a victim of more than $475,000. Further, the Eighth Circuit found that the BIA did not apply the wrong legal standard in finding Petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal and did not err in denying CAT relief. View "Chantelle Robbertse v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

In 1999, Kolov sought asylum and related protections. Kolov was removed to Bulgaria in 2012. In 2014, Kolov reentered the U.S. His prior removal order was reinstated. In an interview, Kolov indicated that he was a member of the “Roma” ethnic group and had been subjected to harassment, abuse, and physical violence in Bulgaria; the police were not interested in protecting the Roma. The asylum officer referred his case for withholding-only proceedings. Before his hearing, Kolov submitted a Form I-589, assisted by counsel, listing the same incidents that he described in his interview. At his 2019 hearing, Kolov was represented by counsel and testified in English. He recounted a 2012 incident for the first time. Kolov’s wife testified that she noticed that Kolov had bruises on several occasions during video calls when he was in Bulgaria. Kolov also submitted statements from family and friends, news articles, and country condition materials.The IJ denied Kolov’s application for relief, finding Kolov not credible regarding the alleged incidents of persecution; Kolov’s explanation for the omissions, that he was nervous and under stress, was “not credible.” The IJ concluded that Kolov failed to show government acquiescence to torture. The BIA found that Kolov’s omissions were substantially related to his claim and rendered him not credible. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The BIA’s decision contains no legal error. View "Kolov v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner Angel Aguayo filed a motion to terminate his removal proceedings, contending his state detention and transfer to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody was unlawful. Aguayo was a native and citizen of Mexico. In 1992, he entered the United States unlawfully. For over twenty-five years, Aguayo and his wife lived in Utah and raised four children. In March 2018, Aguayo’s daughter - a United States citizen - filed a visa petition on her father’s behalf. After U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) approved the visa petition, Aguayo lawfully remained in Utah and applied to become a legal permanent resident. In 2019, state law enforcement officers arrested Aguayo in Springville, Utah. He was later charged with two counts of possession of a forged document, use or possession of drug paraphernalia, and having an open container in a vehicle. At the time of his arrest, Aguayo also had pending misdemeanor state charges for issuing a bad check, shoplifting, possession or use of a controlled substance, and use or possession of drug paraphernalia. Aguayo was detained at the Utah County Jail. The day after his arrest, agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) encountered Aguayo during a routine jail check. DHS then issued an immigration detainer (an “ICE hold”) for Aguayo. He remained at the Utah County Jail for about five months. In June 2019, Aguayo pled guilty to some of the pending state charges. He was sentenced to thirty days in the county jail. He would be later sentenced to 364 days’ imprisonment on the forgery convictions, and an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed five years on the bad check conviction. DHS initiated removal proceedings; Aguayo contested his removability. The Tenth Circuit denied Aguayo's petition: he did not show he was prejudiced—under any applicable standard—by the denial of his motion to terminate removal proceedings. View "Aguayo v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Mother sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child and making some of Mother's requested findings to support an application to obtain special immigrant juvenile (SIJ) status for the child under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, holding that there was no abuse of discretion.Mother and Father were married in Mexico and had one child, Max. The parties later moved to Nebraska, where they separated. Mother filed a complaint for dissolution, requesting sole legal and physical custody of Max. The district court dissolved the marriage and awarded Mother custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by refusing to make all the SIJ findings that Mother requested; and (2) Mother's second assignment of error was without merit. View "Hernandez v. Dorantes" on Justia Law

Petitioner initially entered the United States on a traveler’s visa, but he later became a permanent resident after marrying a United States citizen. Then, roughly a decade later, he and his accomplices robbed a delivery van belonging to “an ATM vendor.” Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery and spent five years in prison. Once immigration officials found out about the conviction, they started removal proceedings. As relevant here, the government argued he was removable because Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. The immigration judge and the Board agreed and refused to waive inadmissibility.   The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Hobbs Act robbery requires proof of an “unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person . . . of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force.” Thus, Petitioner is removable for having committed a “crime of violence.” Moreover, the court wrote that the decision in Taylor “does not change our position” that a completed Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence. View "Garfield Green v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law