Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's determination that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1). Defendant's conviction under the Florida statue did not require that he knew that the substance at issue was a controlled substance whereas a conviction under the federal statute did. Therefore, the state offense was not analogous to the federal offense. Accordingly, the court held that the Florida offense was not categorically an aggravated felony and granted the petition for review, vacating the order and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sarmientos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was granted asylum and was subsequently ordered removed on account of his criminal convictions. Because the court held that the plain language of Section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1159(b), did not require an alien to maintain asylum status to be eligible for an adjustment of status, the court granted the petition for review on that issue and vacated the order of removal. The court did not review petitioner's request for relief under the Convention Against Torture because the court was bound by its precedent holding that the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252, divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction to do so. View "Siwe v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, detainees, filed Bivens claims against defendant, a border officer, for violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs were detained as excluded aliens for varying amounts of time and neither of the claims involved physical abuse. Therefore, the claims fell within the confines of entry fiction, and the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable; the detention did not violate constitutional rights; and the district court properly dismissed these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Even if plaintiffs were in fact U.S. citizens, dismissal was proper because defendant enjoyed qualified immunity where plaintiffs pointed to no authority clearly establishing that defendant's actions in detaining, even for as long as ten hours, individuals who presented facially valid documentation, plus the use of unspecified threats and insults during interrogation, violated the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro, et al. v. Cabrera" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's final order of removal. As a preliminary matter, the court could not consider petitioner's affidavit and the response of his former counsel to petitioner's complaint because that evidence was not presented to the BIA. The court held that, through counsel, petitioner clearly waived his right to appeal at the conclusion of the proceedings before the IJ. Although petitioner contended that his waiver was involuntary based upon the ineffectiveness of counsel, petitioner failed to show that he met the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's dismissal of the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged a new method the Attorney General and the Board used to determine that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of admissibility under section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1100 et seq. The court agreed with four of its sister circuits and concluded that the "convicted of" clause of section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) was not ambiguous. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that "convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" was ambiguous and concluded that Congress had spoken directly to the issue. Consequently, the court found no analogous permission to abandon the categorical approach and look beyond the conviction record. In this instance, the court found that the BIA looked beyond the conviction record to conclude that petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court's precedent did not permit such an inquiry, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Trevino v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of an order of removal by ICE, contending that the original order of deportation must be rescinded as unconstitutional. Alternatively, petitioner argued that the order could not be reinstated because he legally reentered the United States. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioner's due process claim. Alternatively, petitioner's challenge to the reinstatement order was without merit where he illegally crossed the border and then applied for a new immigration card with a different identity and number. Successfully deceiving immigration officials into providing one with a new immigration card did not constitute either permission to reenter from the Attorney General or legal reentry. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Martinez v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's conclusion that he was inadmissible because there was reason to believe that he was a drug trafficker. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for review and dismissed the petition where a prior conviction was not required for an alien to be removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), and where DHS has shown through reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence that petitioner was engaged in illicit trafficking. View "Cuevas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of her application for an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Because petitioner entered the United States on a K-1 visa, she was required to marry the person who petitioned for her visa or depart the country within 90 days. Petitioner did neither, but instead, remained in the United States and subjected herself to removal and the bar to adjustment for status found in 8 U.S.C. 1255(d). Sections 1255(a) and 1255(d) announced no special rules for Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I), self-petitioners that created an exception to the section 1255(d) bar. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Le v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the DHS's Final Administrative Removal Order issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b). The court concluded that petitioner did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies, and even without the bar of exhaustion, there was still the impediment that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who was removable by reason of having committed an aggravated felony. The court denied the petition because petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and, therefore, he was properly subjected to the expedited administrative removal process. View "Valdiviez-Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of DHS's reinstatement of a previously-issued order of removal against petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he acquired citizenship from his U.S. citizen father at birth. The court concluded that petitioner met the requirements of INA 301 and 309 and acquired U.S. citizenship from his father at birth. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iracheta v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law