Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

The government appealed from the district court's order suppressing evidence found following the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle driven by defendant. The vehicle stop was executed by two officers of the St. Regis Mohawk Police Department (SRMPD), one of whom was also cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer by ICE. The district court held that the vehicle stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked the authority to act as law enforcement officers at the time of the stop. The court held that the violation of the ICE policy requiring prior authorization did not affect the constitutionality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment and that the stop and subsequent search comported with the Fourth Amendment because they were justified by probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the district court. Because the court determined that the stop was a constitutional exercise of designated customs authority, the court did not decide whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of New York police authority. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

This opinion sets out a procedure for all immigration cases pending in this Court that will enable an interested petition and the Government to evaluate whether remand to the BIA, according to terms specified, is appropriate. View "In the Matter of Immigration" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of the BIA's order reversing the decision of the IJ, which granted her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ found that petitioner testified credibly and belonged to a particular social group at risk of being kidnapped and forced into prostitution. Because the court found that young, unmarried Albanian women did not constitute a social group for asylum purposes, the court denied the petition for review. View "Gjura v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the decision of the IJ denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that the BIA failed to consider petitioner's opposition in its full factual and political context, and the court rejected the BIA's conclusion that opposition to corruption at one workplace - without evidence that the corruption extended to other workplaces - could not serve as the basis for asylum. Finally, the court concluded that the BIA erroneously failed to consider petitioner's claim of imputed political opinion. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Yu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Albania, sought review of an order of removal by ICE. Petitioner entered the United States through the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), using a fraudulent Italian passport. The court held that petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to contest her removal on any basis other than asylum, and having participated in her asylum-only proceeding, petitioner could not contest removal on the ground that she filed an adjustment of status application after she overstayed the time she was authorized to be in this country. The court concluded that a VWP participant could not contest his or her removal on the basis of an adjustment of status application filed after the 90-day period during which a VWP participant could stay in the country. View "Gjerjaj v. Holder" on Justia Law

Adams entered the U.S. from Jamaica in 1990 on a visitor’s visa and overstayed. Arrested in New York in 1992, for attempting to sell cocaine to an undercover officer, Adams represented that he was “Michael Thomas” and pleaded guilty. “Thomas” failed to appear for sentencing. The state court received a form from Jamaica certifying that “Michael Thomas” had committed suicide. Adams returned to Jamaica where, in 1994, he married a U.S. citizen. Adams applied for an immigrant visa, representing that he had never been in the U.S. and had never been arrested or convicted. The consul granted an immigrant visa in 1997. He was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. In 2008, returning from a trip to Jamaica, he was stopped by Customs officials, who suspected that Adams was “Michael Thomas” in the outstanding arrest warrant. The Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately ordered removal. Adams argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1256(a), barred removal because Adams was the beneficiary of an adjustment of status when he obtained an immigrant visa and that there is a five-year limitation on rescinding the status of a lawful permanent resident. The Second Circuit rejected the arguments.View "Adams v. Holder" on Justia Law

Mota and Castillo married in Mexico, where their daughter, Elena, was born. In 2007, when Elena was six months old, Castillo entered the U.S. illegally and began sending financial support to his wife and daughter. In 2010 Mota and Castillo decided to reunite. They hired a smuggler to take Elena across the border. After Elena had entered the U.S., Mota tried to cross the border, but was repeatedly blocked by American border guards. Meanwhile, the smugglers had transported Elena to New York, where she began living with her father. After one attempt to enter, Mota was arrested and prosecuted for use of false identification. Castillo began living with another woman, no longer sent financial support, and declared that he would keep Elena. Mexican authorities applied to the U.S. government for the child’s return. Castillo then instituted custody proceedings in New York. Having obtained no relief through official diplomatic channels, Mota filed a petition seeking an order requiring Castillo to return Elena to her in Mexico under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601. The district court granted the order. The Second Circuit affirmed. View "Mota v. Castillo" on Justia Law

VLiranzo was born in 1955 in the Dominican Republic. He entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1965; in 1972 his mother became a naturalized citizen and he obtained derivative citizenship, 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(3) Liranzo did not know he had become a citizen and continued to renew his "green card" through 2006.In 2006 Liranzo was released from incarceration in New York for possession of a controlled substance. Before his release, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement erroneously identified him as a permanent resident alien, subject to removal. He was transported to a detention center in Louisiana pending removal. During removal proceedings, it was discovered that Liranzo is a U.S. citizen, and he was released. He filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that federal immigration officials had falsely arrested and imprisoned him. Following two years of discovery, the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was no private analogue to the immigration detention suffered by plaintiff. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a Fourth Amendment claim, but held that the court had jurisdiction over the FTCA claim, because there is a private analogue: false imprisonment. View "Liranzo v. United States " on Justia Law

Vartelas, a native of Greece and permanent resident of the U.S. since 1989, pleaded guilty to a felony in 1994. At the time, lawful permanent residents were not regarded as making an “entry” when returning from “innocent, casual, and brief excursion[s] . . . outside this country’s borders.” An alien in Vartelas’s situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing resident alien status. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, under which lawful permanent residents returning from a trip abroad are regarded as seeking admission if they have committed an offense under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), including the felony to which Vartelas had pleaded guilty. In 2003, Vartelas briefly traveled to Greece to visit family. Upon returning, he was treated as an inadmissible alien. An IJ denied ordered Vartelas removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and denied a motion to reopen based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Second Circuit held that Vartelas was not prejudiced by failure to raise nonretroactivity, since the IIRIRA could apply retroactively. In 2012, the Supreme Court reversed, “[g]uided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation.” The Second Circuit remanded to the BIA to consider the performance of Vartelas’s attorneys. View "Vartelas v. Holder" on Justia Law

Velez moved from Ecuador at age 16 to live with her half-sister, Sanchez, Sanchez’s sister Munoz, and their mother, Yolanda Munoz, and perform housework and babysitting. The relationship deteriorated and Velez believed that she was being isolated and that promises were not kept. She sued under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201-19, and New York state law. The district court dismissed certain claims, including breach of contract claim, allowed the parties to complete discovery and submit additional materials, then found sua sponte that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over ATS claims and converted them to a claim for a civil remedy under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C. 1595, but granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims. The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the contract and ATS claims and vacated and remanded with respect to FLSA and state law claims. View "Velez v. Sanchez" on Justia Law