Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

This case was about the government’s repeated efforts to remove Petitioner Kairi Abha Shepherd from the United States on the ground she is a criminal alien. In the initial removal proceeding, the government did not effectively contest Petitioner's claim to automatic citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), and the Immigration Judge (IJ) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The next day, the government initiated a new removal proceeding, explaining to the same IJ that it had made a mistake and now realized that Petitioner was too old to qualify under the CCA for citizenship. The IJ eventually decided that his initial ruling precluded the government from relitigating Petitioner's citizenship or alienage status, and he terminated the proceeding. The government successfully appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which held that collateral estoppel did not apply and remanded to the IJ, who ordered removal. Petitioner then appealed to the Tenth Circuit for review. Upon review, the Court found that Petitioner's alien status precluded the Court's jurisdiction: "[Petitioner's] issue preclusion argument based on the IJ’s first decision is unavailing because administrative collateral estoppel does not apply to our sec. 1252(b)(5) analysis." Accordingly, the Court dismissed her petition for review. View "Shepherd v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Emmanuel Huitron-Guizar entered a conditional guilty plea to being an illegal alien in possession of firearms transported or shipped in interstate commerce, and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. Defendant was to be delivered upon release to an immigration official for deportation. On appeal, he argued that 18 U.S.C. sec. 922(g)(5)(a) was unconstitutional and that the district court committed various sentencing errors in applying the Sentencing Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the applicable statute constitutional, and that the district court committed no errors in arriving at Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Huitron-Guizar" 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

In August 2010, Defendant Byron Ventura-Perez pled guilty in Colorado to illegal reentry after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction. Defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he contended the district court miscalculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) he contended that when the court imposed his sentence, it improperly refused to consider sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Petitioner Zhi Wei Pang illegally entered the United States in 1993 from the People's Republic of China. Months after he arrived, he unsuccessfully applied for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed he suffered economic and emotional persecution due to his resistance to Chinese population control policies. But because the economic penalties imposed on Petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution, the Board of Immigration Appeals recommended Petitioner's removal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and denied Petitioner's petition for review.

Defendant-Appellant Juan Manuel Cardenas-Mireles pled guilty to the offense of illegal reentry after deportation. At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance notwithstanding an adult criminal record involving 44 convictions and four deportations. The district court denied the motion, instead sentencing Defendant at the top of the applicable guidelines range. Defendant appealed his sentence on two grounds: (1) the district court committed procedural error by relying on an impermissible sentencing rationale to lengthen his sentence (namely, that remaining incarcerated was in Defendant's own best interests due to his health and mental state); (2) his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to a sentence within the guidelines, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions.

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.

Defendant-Appellant Carrillo-Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the offense of illegal reentry after deportation subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction. At sentencing, he moved for a downward variance from the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) range based on the staleness of his prior felony. The district court declined to grant it, instead sentencing Defendant at the bottom of the applicable guidelines range. Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing that it was substantively unreasonable. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Defendant's request for a downward variance, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the court's judgment.

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.