Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs are non-immigrant aliens, authorized by the federal government to reside and work as pharmacists in the U.S. All reside in New York and are licensed pharmacists there pursuant to a statutory waiver to New York Education Law 6805(1)(6)’s requirement that only U.S. citizens or Legal Permanent Residents are eligible to obtain a pharmacist’s license in New York. The waiver provision was set to expire in 2009. The district court permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law. The Second Circuit affirmed. A state statute that discriminates against aliens who have been lawfully admitted to reside and work in the United States should be viewed in the same light under the Equal Protection Clause as one which discriminates against aliens who enjoy the right to reside here permanently. Applying strict scrutiny and finding, as the state conceded, that there are no compelling reasons for the statute’s discrimination based on alienage, the court found the statute unconstitutional. View "Paidi v. Mill" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for adjustment of status and order of removal. At issue was whether petitioner was eligible to adjust his status to legal permanent resident (LPR) status on any basis other than marriage to his K-1 visa sponsor. Because petitioner was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, he could not adjust his status to that of a full LPR on any basis other than marriage to his original K-1 visa sponsor. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a noncitizen from Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because his conviction of embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. 656 constituted an aggravated felony. The court held that because none of the facts to which petitioner actually and necessarily pleaded to establish the elements of his embezzlement revealed whether that offense was committed with a specific intent to defraud, it was error for the BIA to infer that his conviction was an offense involving fraud or deceit. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Akinsade v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction following his guilty plea to illegally transporting aliens within the United States; assisting an inadmissible alien in entering the United States; and illegally being present in the United States after having previously been removed. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court miscalculated the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines by adding two points to his criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) for his commission of an offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The court held that defendant's knowledge that he was subject to a term of supervised release was not required for the district court to impose an enhancement based on the fact that defendant committed the instant crimes while "under a[] criminal justice sentence." The court declined to reach defendant's ineffective assistance claim and dismissed without prejudice. With regard to defendant's remaining claims, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Grenadines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable based on his second-degree assault conviction in violation of New York Law 120.05(2) and on the basis of petitioner's conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of New York Penal Law 110 and 220.3. The court concluded that a conviction for second-degree assault under section 120.05(2) categorically constituted a "crime of violence" for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 16(b). The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky did not overturn the court's precedent holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause was not applicable in the deportation and removal context. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. View "Morris v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his requests for cancellation of removal and a waiver of inadmissibility. The court held that a conviction for witness tampering under Connecticut General Statutes 53a-151 constituted an "offense relating to obstruction of justice" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S), and that petitioner was therefore ineligible for relief. His conviction stemmed from allegations that petitioner sexually assaulted a minor and later instructed her that, if she talked to the police, she should tell them that "nothing ever happened." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for review. View "Higgins v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China (PRC), petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of their application for asylum and other relief despite a finding by an IJ that petitioner would be subjected to coercive sterilization if returned to the PRC. The court concluded that an IJ's finding that a future even would occur if an applicant was removed was a finding of fact subject to review for clear error and that the BIA properly applied de novo review to an IJ's determination that an applicant had not satisfied her burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution. The court also concluded that the BIA could determine the weight to be accorded to State Department country reports. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded the case. View "Huang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, appealed the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's finding that she filed a frivolous asylum application. At issue was whether (1) a "frivolousness finding" could be entered against an alien who had withdrawn her asylum application; and (2) an IJ retained any discretion to decline to make a frivolousness finding. The court held that the BIA's conclusion that a withdrawn asylum application could serve as the basis of a frivolousness finding was reasonable, but that the BIA's decision that the IJ lacked discretion not to make such a finding was unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part and granted in part, vacating the BIA's decision and remanding for further proceedings. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. At issue was whether the notice requirements of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1), were satisfied by service of a Notice to Appear that indicated that the date and time of a hearing would be set in the future, followed by service of a separate notice specifying the precise date and time of the hearing. Also at issue was whether the stop-time rule of INA 240A(d)(1) was triggered by proper notice under section 239(a)(1) even if the notice requirements of section 239(a)(2) were not satisfied. The court held that service of Notice of Appear followed by service of a separate notice indicating the precise date and time of the hearing satisfied the notice requirements of section 239(a)(1). The court also held that, once a petitioner had been served with notice complying with INA 239(a)(1), the stop-time rule of section 240A(d)(1) was triggered, regardless of whether subsequent notices regarding changes in time or place of proceeding complied with section 239(a)(2). Because petitioner could not demonstrate that he was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years immediately prior to his application for relief, he was ineligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b)(1) and therefore, the petition was denied. View "Guamanrrigra v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ireland, sought review of an order of the BIA finding him ineligible for adjustment of status due to his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(c)(ii), for falsely representing himself to be a United States citizen. The court concluded that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that he did not represent himself to be a United States citizen when he checked the "citizen or national" box on an 1-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Crocock v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law