Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, was eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal despite having a criminal conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1182, the provision granting her eligibility was repealed and IIRIRA specified that aliens with a criminal conviction like petitioner's were no longer eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal. On appeal, petitioner argued that this constituted impermissible retroactive legislation as applied to her case. Because the court concluded that petitioner could invoke the presumption against retroactive application, she was entitled to pursue section 212(c) relief. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the BIA's order finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal and deeming him ineligible to be admitted on the basis that the Texas assault statute for which he was convicted qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMI). The court held that the BIA's decision was consistent with precedent and its determination was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmation of the IJ's decision to deny his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7) unambiguously gives aliens a right to file a motion to reopen regardless of whether they have left the United States. Therefore, the BIA's application of the departure regulation to statutory motions to reopen was invalid under Chevron's first step as the statute plainly did not impose a general physical presence requirement. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Carias v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Ghanaian citizen, was charged with being removable because he was an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. That same year, petitioner applied for asylum. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. Petitioner also petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of a motion to consider. The court addressed the second petition, holding that the departure regulation could not be applied to statutorily authorized motions to reconsider. The departure regulation therefore could not serve as a basis for denying aliens who have departed the United States their statutorily authorized right to file one motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the court granted the second petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the remand, the court denied the first petition for review and left unanswered the questions regarding whether petitioner was properly found to have been removable. View "Lari v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered in the United States in 1999. She had authorization to remain for a temporary period, not to exceed six months, but she remained beyond that period without authorization. In 2007 Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of fraudulent identifying information. The Department of Homeland Security then charged Petitioner with removability as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents, which an immigration judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's ineligibility for cancellation of removal depended solely on whether her prior state-court conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude; and (2) Petitioner's offense was one of moral turpitude, and therefore, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Nino v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant illegally entered the United States in 2002. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings. Defendant applied for relief from removal based on his fear of harm in his native El Salvador. Defendant also sought review of DHS's denial of his application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The immigration judge denied Defendant's applications and ordered him removed to El Salvador. The BIA affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's motion for stay of deportation and granted the government's motion for summary denial of Defendant's petition for review, holding that the Attorney General was not required to withhold Defendant's removal, and that Defendant was ineligible to receive TPS. View "Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal re-entry. Defendant contended that the district court erred in considering his need for anger management courses in determining the length of his sentence. At issue in this case was whether, when the law at the time of trial or plea is unsettled, but becomes clear while the case is pending on appeal, review for the second prong of the plain error test properly considers the law as it stood during the district court proceedings or at the time of the appellate court's decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the majority of other circuits in holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal, the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal. The Court then held that the district court's determination under the second prong of the plain error test was plain error, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. View "United States v. Escalante-Reyes" on Justia Law

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) creates a system for the appointment and payment of counsel for defendants unable to afford representation. At issue here was subsection (c), which concerns the ability of district courts to appoint counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. Defendant, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion under subsection (c) for an additional court-appointed attorney to seek to have a prior state felony conviction set aside in an Iowa court. The prior Iowa conviction lengthened the advisory sentencing range for the illegal reentry offense. The district court determined the purpose would not be an appropriate use of CJA funds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's challenge to a prior, unrelated conviction in a state court that could affect the sentence he received on a new federal conviction was not an "ancillary matter" under the statute, and therefore, it was inappropriate to appoint counsel for Defendant in this case. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Kingsley Dayo petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on the government's violation of confidentiality in revealing to the Nigerian consulate that he had applied for asylum. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) Dayo was allowed a separate claim for relief based on the breach of confidentiality; and (2) because the BIA considered this separate claim, and because its denial of relief on that ground was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review was denied. View "Dayo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights. View "Ayton v. Holder" on Justia Law