Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision and rejecting his claim to automatic derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The BIA found petitioner removable on the basis of his prior criminal conviction for sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, as well as other criminal convictions. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of section 1432(a)(3) and concluded that petitioner's argument based on the constitutional avoidance canon was barred by the plain language of the statute; the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim based on purported legitimacy discrimination; and the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection claim based on gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pierre v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen proceedings in her immigration case. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claiming persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The BIA rejected petitioner's evidentiary submissions because she had not submitted a sworn statement in support of her motion and because her expert witness had not provided copies of the sources on which he relied. The court concluded that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attaching consequences to these previously unarticulated requirements in petitioner's case and, therefore, granted the petition for review. View "Indradjaja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision denying cancellation of removal and the BIA's decision not to reopen his case. The IJ concluded that petitioner had not met his burden of proving the ten years of continuous presence required for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the IJ's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings was expressly premised on the same erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the court remanded Case No. 11-1833 for further proceedings. Because the court could not review the BIA's exercise of discretion denying cancellation of removal, the court dismissed Case No. 10-4100. View "Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, his wife, and son, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of their application for adjustment of status and order of removal to Ecuador. Petitioner claimed that the BIA erred in finding him ineligible for adjustment of status based on an earlier 1997 order of removal because that order was entered in violation of due process. The court dismissed the petitions for review, concluding that section 242(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(A), deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear these petitions. View "Shunaula v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a conviction of illegally reentering the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The court concluded that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed where he was not "found in" the United States in 2002, as he argued, but was instead "found" here in 2010. The court also concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed where the IJ relied upon multiple grounds for denying defendant relief and the court did not think clearly erroneous the district court's finding that evidence of defendant's cooperation was before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioner, who was born in Nigeria and came to the United States when he was four years old, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of an appeal of an IJ's decision denying his motion to terminate his removal proceedings. At issue was whether petitioner's failure to become a lawful permanent resident before turning eighteen years old, when his parents became naturalized citizens when he was seventeen, barred him from claiming derivative citizenship from his parents. In considering petitioner's claim, the court must apply the law in effect when he fulfilled the last requirement for derivative citizenship. In this instance, the law in effect when petitioner applied for lawful permanent residence status after his parents were naturalized was former section 321(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The court concluded that petitioner satisfied the derivative citizenship conditions of section 321(a) and, therefore, granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Nwozuzu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's grant of their motion to suppress evidence obtained in egregious violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and termination of removal proceedings. Relying on INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the BIA found that it need not determine whether petitioners suffered an egregious violation because birth certificates and arrest records were obtained after the Government had determined their identities. The court joined the Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits in finding that Lopez-Mendoza reaffirmed a long-standing rule of personal jurisdiction; it did not create an evidentiary rule insulating specific pieces of identity-related evidence from suppression. Therefore, the BIA erred in concluding that the Government had met its burden of establishing that certain alienage-related evidence had been obtained independent of any constitutional violation. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the BIA to reach the issue of whether Government agents seized evidence of alienage from petitioners in the course of committing an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. View "Pretzantzin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal. After the Government instituted removal proceedings, petitioner filed a motion to suppress the Government's evidence, arguing that ICE officers obtained the evidence in violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights when they forcibly gained entrance to his home and arrested him without a warrant or probable cause. The court concluded that the IJ erred in finding that petitioner's submissions were insufficient to shift the burden to the Government to establish consent and erred in concluding that the facts alleged, even accepted as true, were insufficient to yield an egregious Fourth Amendment violation requiring suppression. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Cotzojay v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the USCIS and the agency's New York District Director. The district court determined that the statements plaintiff submitted to show that he was entitled to derivative United States citizenship were inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiff's brother was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan terrorists, and if plaintiff were able to prove derivative citizenship, he could ostensibly be entitled to compensation. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statements under the family history exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to derivative citizenship because he submitted no sufficient admissible evidence establishing his mother's age at relocation. View "Porter v. Quarantillo" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, pleaded guilty to robbery after illegally reentering the United States. At issue on appeal was whether the district court plainly erred by sentencing defendant to, inter alia, a three-year term of supervised release even though U.S.S.G. 5D1.1(c) provided that district courts "ordinarily should not impose a term of supervised release in a case in which... the defendant is a deportable alien who likely will be deported after imprisonment." The court held that the district court adequately explained why it sentenced defendant to a term of supervised release where "an added measure of deterrence and protection" was needed in defendant's case. Even assuming arguendo that the district court erred by not adequately explaining its reasons for imposing a term of supervised release on defendant, in the circumstances presented here, it did not "plainly err" because the alleged error did not affect his substantial rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Alvarado" on Justia Law