Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a national of India and lawful permanent resident in the United States, pled guilty to one count of receiving Medicare kickbacks and one count of income tax evasion. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate his tax evasion conviction on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with his criminal defense attorney's advice as to the deportation consequences of pleading guilty to that count. The court concluded, based on the entire record, that the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner failed to establish that, if counsel had recommended withdrawal of the plea, petitioner would have accepted that recommendation in order to go to trial. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the petition was untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Chhabra v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Petitioner was able to demonstrate this continuous presence except for two encounters with U.S. Border Patrol in 2007, each of which resulted in what the parties termed petitioner's "voluntary return" to Mexico. The court held that the immigration judge reasonably found that during each of those well-documented encounters, petitioner knowingly and voluntarily conceded his removability, waived his right to appear before an immigration judge, and chose to leave the United States in lieu of more formal proceedings. The court further held that petitioner's return to Mexico under those circumstances severed his continuous physical presence in the United States, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Finally, the court denied petitioner's appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen proceedings. View "Rosario-Mijangos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that he was ineligible for the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997's (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2193, so-called "special rule cancellation of removal" under 8 C.F.R. 1240.66(b)(1). The court concluded that the BIA's interpretation of section 1240.66(b)(1) was inconsistent with the regulation, and as an unadmitted alien, petitioner could not be ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal on the basis of a conviction that would make an admitted alien "deportable" under section 237 of the INA. Because the court's holding was limited to the conclusion that conviction of a crime specified under section 237 could not render petitioner, as an unadmitted alien, ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal, the court remanded so that the BIA could decide in the first instance any other matters that could be appropriate in determining whether to grant special rule cancellation of removal to petitioner. View "Reyes v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA finding him inadmissible because he made a false claim of United States citizenship in order to avoid being placed in removal proceedings. The BIA concluded that the false claim triggered the inadmissibility provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(l). The court concluded that neither the BIA nor the court had previously issued a precedential opinion defining what counted as a "purpose or benefit" under federal or state law. Therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded so that the BIA could determine in the first instance the scope of conduct encompassed by section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)(l). View "Richmond v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted in state court of attempted arson in the second degree in violation of New York law, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that the attempted arson in the second degree was a felony that, by its nature, involved a substantial risk of the intentional use of physical force against the person or property of another. Therefore, attempted arson in the second degree was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 101(a)(43)(F), (U). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for review. View "Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that petitioner's New York state conviction under NYPL 220.39(1) constituted an aggravated felony, which deprived the court of jurisdiction to review the order of removal. The court also denied petitioner's additional motions as moot. View "Pascual v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Albania, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of the CIS to deny plaintiff's application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to section 212(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(i). Because the plain language of the INA provided that judicial review of such decisions was available only for "constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals," the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff's claims. The court need not consider the government's remaining arguments that plaintiff's removal from the United States rendered this appeal moot and that plaintiff failed to identify any legal errors in the CIS's decision. View "Shabaj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Serbia, petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming the oral decision of the IJ, which denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ rejected petitioner's claim of past persecution, explaining that his failure to demonstrate that the abuse he suffered had a sufficient nexus to a protected ground. The court concluded, however, that the proposed group of cooperating witnesses was a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for the agency to consider whether petitioner was a member of the group, whether the 2005 attacks and threats directed against petitioner amounted to persecution, and, if so, whether that persecution was on account of his membership in the group. View "Gashi v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court convicting him of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326, following a conditional plea. While defendant's 1998 immigration proceedings were pending, he was arrested for robbery and detained in New York. Although he notified the INS of his new address, the INS did not properly process the address change and failed to notify defendant of his ongoing immigration proceedings, so that he was ordered removed in absentia. Defendant was removed to Jamaica but he subsequently returned to the United States. He was arrested again and indicted for illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was given no notice of the 1998 removal proceedings. Because the district court properly considered defendant's completed criminal conduct in ruling that the entry of the removal order against defendant in abstentia was not fundamentally unfair because there was no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained relief had he received notice of the removal proceeding and been present, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daley" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Malaysian citizen who has overstayed his immigrant visa in the United States, sought an adjustment of immigration status. Petitioner invoked the so-called "grandfathering" exception for beneficiaries of labor-certification applications filed by April 30, 2001 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). The Attorney General has interpreted that provision as applying only to beneficiaries actually listed on labor-certification applications as of April 30, 2001. The court held that 8 C.F.R. 245.10(j) and section 1245.10(j), in which the Attorney General set forth this interpretation, was entitled to Chevron deference. Accordingly, the IJ and BIA properly determined that petitioner was ineligible for a change of immigration status because he was not listed as a beneficiary on an application for labor certification until after April 30, 2001. The court denied the petition for review. View "Lee v. Holder" on Justia Law