Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. shared a home. When his housemate's visa expired and he was unable to obtain work, defendant allowed the housemate, for a nominal fee, the use of his driver's license and social security card. He obtained employment in defendant's name. Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that, because he permitted the use of his documents, there was no theft. The statute does not require that the means of identification be stolen or otherwise illicitly procured. The prosecutor's statements about a witness having "no axe to grind," even if improper, did not require a new trial.

Defendant purchased an expired passport and a social security card and attempted to use them to obtain a passport with his picture. He entered a plea of guilty to two counts of making false statements in a passport application, 18 U.S.C. 1542, one count of unlawful re-entry of a deported alien, 8 U.S.C. 1326, and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A, and received a 70-month prison sentence. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary. The court rejected an argument that, because defendant bought, rather than stole, the passport, the identity theft was not a use of documents "without lawful authority." The sentence was procedurally and substantively sound; in light of defendant's criminal history, it was at the bottom of the Guidelines range.

A citizen of Guatemala unlawfully entered the U.S. in 1989. In 1997 he was convicted, in Massachusetts, of willful and malicious destruction of property and two counts of assault and battery. The convictions were the result of domestic violence incidents; he has no children. In 2007 he was charged as removeable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). An Immigration Judge rejected his motion to cancel removal under the cancellation of removal (8 C.F.R. 1240.64, 1240.66) under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination that petitioner did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. Petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the handling of his case.

Petitioner, a native of Romania, entered the U.S. legally with a visa that allowed him to work as a driver for a particular company. He conceded removability after an inspection revealed that he had switched companies without authorization, in violation of the terms of his visa (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)). The immigration judge found his testimony about being harassed and beaten by police in Romania plausible, but noted inconsistencies. The IJ concluded that petitioner did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution and denied asylum. The First Circuit denied review.

In 2006 defendant was convicted of various immigration crimes, including harboring five illegal aliens from Brazil (8 U.S.C. 1324), and sentenced to five years in prison. After the trial, but before sentencing, he was indicted for smuggling those same aliens into the country. The court denied a motion to dismiss. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to another five years. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument of successive prosecution in violation of defendant's due process rights. The Due Process Clause provides no greater protection than the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant conceded that each prosecution required proof of a fact that the other did not require so there was no double jeopardy violation. The district court conclusion that there was no "extraordinary misconduct" by the prosecution justifying a sentence below the mandatory minimum was within its discretion.

Husband entered the U.S. in 2002, using a false Italian passport and wife entered on a temporary tourist visa that subsequently expired. Both are citizens of Albania. In 2003, husband applied for asylum and withholding of removal and listed wife as a derivative beneficiary. Later, wife applied for asylum. The the Immigration Judge denied both relief. The Board of Immigration appeals affirmed. The First Circuit vacated and remanded. The IJ and the Board did not give a persuasive explanation for rejecting the claim of past persecution.The threats and violence against husband were substantial and continued over almost a decade; they were arguably based on interrelated motives related to his political beliefs and his job at the Albanian Supreme Court. The persecution involved attacks on his children. Changed country conditions do not automatically trump specific evidence.

The petitioner entered the United States without authorization from the Ivory Coast in 2000, leaving his family behind. His application for asylum, based on two incidents of arrest and detention, was denied, and he was deemed eligible for removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the First Circuit affirmed, noting inconsistencies in the application and testimony, lack of corroboration, and the petitioner's evasive answers. The finding that the petitioner's testimony was not credible was supported by substantial evidence.

In 2000, the petitioner attempted to enter the United States on a false passport, refused to reveal her true identity, and stated that she had no fear of returning to Cambodia. In 2002 she entered on a six-month visitor visa. In 2003 she filed a petition for asylum; in 2004 a notice of removability issued. An immigration judge denied the petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the First Circuit rejected appeals. The petitioner did not corroborate her testimony; there was no evidence that family members remaining in Cambodia suffered persecution. Even accepting testimony that she was raped by police officers, there was no evidence that the rapes were politically motivated or amounted to persecution.