Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose out of Defendant's attempt to illegally reenter the United States at the United States-Mexico border. A jury convicted Defendant of attempted illegal reentry and for making a false statement to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not unconstitutionally direct a verdict by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and by its response to the jury's note; (2) the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and responding to the jury's note; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Jara-Favela" on Justia Law

Salvadoran citizens Jose Orellana-Monson and his brother Andres entered the United States in 2005. They were charged with being in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The Orellana-Monsons claimed asylum because of Jose's political opinions - specifically, opposition to gangs - and because they would be persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group. Initially, an immigration judge rejected this argument, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the BIA to explain the basis for its decision. On remand, the BIA dismissed the appeal, determining that Salvadoran young adults who were subjected to, and who rejected, recruitment efforts of gangs did not possess the social visibility and particularity to constitute "membership in a particular social group" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that the Orellana-Monsons did not demonstrate that they were eligible for status under the "particular social group" prong of the INA's eligibility criteria for asylum. View "Orellana-Monson v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iqbal" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was an alien at the time of his reentry. The court found that there was substantial evidence showing that defendant was an alien when he reentered the United States. The court also found that the nunc pro tunc divorce decree obtained in 2010 purporting to retroactively rearrange defendant's custody status in 1994 did not raise a reasonable doubt as to this alienage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's summary judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that required all adults living in rental housing within the City to obtain an occupancy license conditioned upon the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Villas at Parkside Partners, et al. v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to lying about his U.S. citizenship on a Firearms Transaction Record form which he completed while attempting to purchase a handgun. Defendant also pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Defendant appealed the district court's decision on his ineffective counsel claim where defendant claimed counsel failed to independently research and investigate the derivative citizenship defense. The court concluded that defendant's guilty pleas were not entered knowingly or voluntarily because counsel advised him without investigating derivative citizenship. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Juarez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens, conspiracy to conceal or harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring or concealing illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(I). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's admission of expert testimony by federal law enforcement agents regarding usual locations of passengers in the vehicles used to transport illegal aliens; use of multiple bailouts in illegal alien trafficking; the role of guides; and relationships among drivers, guides, and recruiters. An agent's statement identifying a particular phone number as belonging to unindicted co-conspirator was hearsay, but not prejudicial.

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, was removed from the U.S. in 1989, following convictions for grand theft auto, second degree burglary, amd receiving stolen property. About one month later, he illegally reentered. In 1990, he was convicted in Missouri of rape and armed criminal action and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The Border Patrol was not notified of his 2008 release, and no removal order issued. In 2009 he was taken into custody and pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). The presentence report recommended enhancing his offense level by 16 levels based on his 1990 conviction. The district court found that, after serving his sentence, defendant unlawfully remained in the U.S., applied the 16-level enhancement and calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 77 to 96 months, then sentenced him to 90 months. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that a defendant alleged to have unlawfully remained in the U.S. following a qualifying conviction under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is subject to the 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement only when a removal order is issued or reinstated after that conviction.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition challenging the removal order resulting in his deportation to Mexico. Petitioner argued that he was "in custody" within the meaning of section 2241 because he was being restrained from returning to the United States despite his wrongful removal. Because petitioner had failed to show that his deportation was the result of extreme circumstances or that he was subject to any restraints in Mexico not experienced by other non-citizens who lacked the documentation to enter the United States, he had not shown that he was "in custody" within the meaning of section 2241. Further, the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the final removal order pursuant to the provisions of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he be removed based on having committed an aggravated felony. Petitioner was charged and convicted of felonious sexual intercourse without consent. Petitioner did not "necessarily" commit the aggravated felony of rape, rather than a lesser crime. Because the court was not convinced that petitioner pled guilty to a crime that can be categorized as rape under 18 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A), the court granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA's decision, remanding to the BIA.