Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Crescencio Ochoa-Tovali pled guilty to reentering the United States as a previously removed alien in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to 57 months' imprisonment. This sentence reflected Defendant's criminal history that included a 1995 robbery conviction and a 1993 probation revocation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court weighed too heavily his 1993 and 1995 offenses and weighed too lightly his reason for reentering the United States. Defendant challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable. Upon careful consideration of the lower court's record, as well as Defendant's criminal history, the Tenth Circuit found the sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant Alvaro Madriz-Castillo appealed his 57-month sentence for unlawful reentry as a previously deported alien. He contended that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court adequately explained Defendant's sentence, and he did not overcome the presumption that his sentence was not unreasonably long. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant Jesus Balbin-Mesa appealed his sentence after he pled guilty to a charge of reentering the United States after having been deported. In March 2010, Defendant filed a motion to ask for a downward adjustment from the applicable sentencing guideline range. The district court considered it "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to sentence Defendant to twenty-eight months' imprisonment. The court ordered a two-year period of supervised release, and added a special condition that Defendant not reenter the United States again without prior legal authority. The court warned Defendant that if he violated the special condition, he would be "immediately be placed in prison and likely have to serve a longer sentence." At the end of the hearing, the court asked whether Defendant had anything else to present to the court. Defendant did not object then to the sentence, but he appealed it to the Tenth Circuit. The Tenth Circuit noted that Defendant provided his own assessment of the statutory sentencing factors "making an oblique argument (unsupported by case authority) that the district court should have varied more than it did." However, none of Defendant's arguments showed "reversible error." Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower court's sentence.

Petitioner Alfonso Jiminez-Guzman sought review of a removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On appeal, he argued that the agency erred in denying his request for a continuance and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the evidence of his controlled-substance conviction. Petitioner was a lawful permanent resident to the United States. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice-to-appear to Petitioner, charging that he was subject for removal due to a 2002 Colorado conviction for heroin possession. The Immigration Judge granted Petitioner two continuances so that he could obtain counsel. Once he obtained counsel, Petitioner unsuccessfully petitioned to cancel his removal. Upon review of Defendant's conviction record and the BIA's proceedings, the Tenth Circuit found "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence" to support Defendant's removal. The Court found BIA committed no error in dismissing Petitioner's appeal.

Petitioner Vickers Waugh appealed a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that ordered him removed from the United States. In August 2009, Petitioner pled guilty in Utah state court to one count of felonious sexual contact with a minor. Following his conviction, the government instituted removal proceedings. The immigration judge (IJ) found petitioner removable on two grounds: for sexual abuse of a minor and for child abuse. While Petitioner's proceedings were pending, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Padilla v. Kentucky," which held that a non-citizen defendant had a Sixth Amendment right to be advised of the risk of removal resulting from a guilty plea. Relying on that case, Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to terminate his removal proceedings. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner challenged the IJ and BIA's refusal to terminate the removal proceedings against him, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated when no one advised him of the potential of removal when he pled guilty to the state felony charges. The Tenth Circuit found that "Petitioner attempt[ed] to frame his argument as a denial of due process . . . [i]t appears Petitioner's true objection, however, is to the way the IJ and BIA exercised their discretion. . . . This challenge raise[d] neither a constitutional nor a legal issue." The Court found it did not have jurisdiction to review his petition, and declined further review.

Petitioner Edwin Chepsiror sought the Tenth Circuit's review of a removal order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner was denied asylum by an immigration judge after he withdrew from classes at Utah State University in 2005. Petitioner claimed that he feared returning to his native Kenya because he had assisted the Kenyan police investigate the murder of his father and was afraid that if he returned those responsible for the murder would kill him too. Upon review of Petitioner's application and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit held that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to overturn the immigration judge's nor BIA's denial of asylum. Therefore, the Court denied Petitioner's application and affirmed Petitioner's removal from the United States.

Petitioner Yong Chen petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his applications for asylum, restriction on removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner is a Chinese national who came to the United States in 1998. He overstayed his six-month visitor's visa and in 2005 was slated for removal. At that time, he told an Immigration Judge that he planned on filing an application for asylum. However, he did not actually file the application until 2008. BIA concluded that Petitioner was not credible and could provide no corroboration for his persecution claims, and as a result, could not satisfy the burden to establish he was eligible for the relief he requested. The Tenth Circuit determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's asylum request, and it affirmed the BIA's decision. The Court found that Petitioner "merely cited" the standards for relief under CAT, but offered nothing more for the Court's review. Therefore, the Court denied the balance of Petitioner's application.

Petitioner Ioan Vasilu petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a removal order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA affirmed an immigration judge's determination that Petitioner was removable as a criminal alien. The Tenth Circuit determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court found that Petitioner attempted to "collaterally attack" the underlying criminal conviction he received prompting his removal. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's application.

In 2009, when Dodge City police officers pulled Defendant Eusebio Sierra-Ledesma over for speeding, they found that Defendant had been deported in 2008 with no new authority to reenter or remain in the U.S. A jury convicted Defendant of having been found in the U.S. illegally. Defendant appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing multiple errors at trial. The sum of Defendant's argument was that the government failed to prove its case against him. Upon review of the trial record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit was "satisfied" that any error committed at trial was harmless. The Court found that the trial court instructed the jury multiple times throughout that Defendant was innocent until the government proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the record reflected substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the jury's verdict.

On the morning his trial was set to commence, Defendant Mario Ochoa-Olivas pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry to the United States. Using the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court calculated an advisory range of ninety-two to one hundred fifteen months' imprisonment. The court ultimately settled on an eighty-month term. Defendant appealed the sentence, arguing that the district court "double counted" points given to his criminal history, thus leading to an unreasonable sentence. In this case, the Tenth Circuit held that "[w]e are bound by precedent and cannot say that the district court abused its discretion" when it reviewed Defendant's sentence in light of the Sentencing Guidelines and his criminal history. The Court affirmed the district court's calculation of Defendant's sentence.