Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

A Polish citizen, who entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1994, overstayed, and allegedly tried to bribe an immigration officer in a 1999 sting operation. Before her removal proceedings began, she married a U.S. citizen, who filed a petition for an alien relative visa. In 2006, after the petition was approved, she applied to adjust her status under 8 U.S.C. 1255. The IJ found her removable, denied her motion to suppress evidence collected in the sting, and decided that she was not entitled to adjust her status. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal and forwarded information about petitioner's attorney to the state disciplinary board. The petition included a single, underdeveloped legal argument: that evidence gathered during the sting should have been suppressed because the operation was an egregious violation of petitioner's right to due process, an argument foreclosed by an earlier case. The court noted its jurisdictional limitations, but stated that the agency's evaluation of the equities was not particularly persuasive and that it would have required more than weak circumstantial evidence that an alien had bribed a federal immigration official.

Petitioner, age 60, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 1999, pled guilty to aiding and abetting a conspiracy to violate 8 U.S.C. 1328, which prohibits importation of any alien for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose. His role involved distributing condoms to what he knew were brothels. The government commenced removal on the grounds that petitioner committed a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and for having procured persons for purpose of prostitution. He conceded removability for a crime involving moral turpitude, but denied removability for procuring persons for prostitution. He claimed eligibility for cancellation of removal under INA 240A(a), which requires that the noncitizen have lawful permanent residence for five years, continuous residence for seven years, and no conviction for what amounts to an aggravated felony. The Immigration Judge denied cancellation. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit vacated the order of removal and remanded. "Importation ... of any alien for the purpose of prostitution," 8 U.S.C. 1328, encompasses conduct broader than "an offense that relates to the owning, controlling, managing or supervising of a prostitution business," INA 101(a)(43)(K)(i), so petitioner's conviction is not properly categorized as an aggravated felony.

Petitioner, born in Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1977. In 1982, he purported to marry an American woman while still married to his wife in Mexico. He was admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 1984. In 1987, petitioner was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance. Removal proceedings were suspended until 2009, when he was apprehended while returning from a trip to Mexico. Petitioner conceded deportability, but applied for waivers of deportation under former sections 241(f) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and for suspension of deportation pursuant to former section 244(a)(2). An immigration judge denied the applications; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review. Petitioner was never charged or found deportable based on fraud; he was charged only based on his controlled substance offense and was ineligible for a 241 waiver. He was ineligible for suspension of deportation because his period of continuous physical presence ended with his drug crime in 1987, or, in the alternative, when an Order to Show Cause issued in 1988.

Petitioner entered the U.S. from Mexico in 1971, and became a lawful permanent resident in 1977. In 2003, she was indicted for mail fraud in connection with a staged accident insurance scheme; loss to the victims exceeded $10,000. On advice of counsel, she pled guilty and was sentenced to four years’ probation. An alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The government initiated removal proceedings after petitioner unsuccessfully applied for citizenship. She sought to have her conviction overturned and filed a motion for a writ of coram nobis, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because her attorney failed to inform her that a guilty plea could lead to removal. While the motion was pending, the Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010). The court concluded that Padilla did not announce a new rule and did apply to the case and vacated the conviction. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court has defined the concept of an old rule narrowly, limiting it to holdings so compelled by precedent that any contrary conclusion must be deemed unreasonable; Padilla announced a new rule. That numerous courts had failed to anticipate the holding, though not dispositive, is strong evidence that reasonable jurists could have debated the outcome.

Following an anonymous tip, the FBI conducted surveillance of defendant and observed that he regularly transported about four people back and forth between his home and his restaurant. A consent search of the home revealed three people who were illegally present in the U.S. and a make-shift dormitory in the basement and garage. Defendant was convicted of two counts of illegally harboring or shielding illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)) and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $10,000 in fines and forfeit his house. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court rejected a motion to vacate (28 U.S.C. 2255), arguing ineffective counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning proposal of an incorrect jury instruction; failure to object to video-taped testimony of prosecution witnesses; failure to ensure that a language barrier did not prevent communicating with defendant; and preventing defendant from testifying on his own behalf.

Petitioner, age 14, and her mother, a biomedical researcher, entered the U.S. from Georgia on temporary visas in 1998. While their applications for permanent residency were pending, the mother violated the terms of her temporary visa by continuing to work after the visa expired. Both applications for residence were denied in light of the oversight. After the mother obtained a new temporary visa and reapplied for permanent residence, DHS determined that petitioner, who had turned 21 was no longer a derivative beneficiary of her mother and no longer eligible to apply for residence. When removal proceedings began, petitioner claimed that the Child Status Protection Act, 116 Stat. 930, operated to freeze her age as of the date of her motherâs original visa classification petition. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected the claim. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The CSPA applies to petitioner because her motherâs classification petition was approved prior to its enactment, and neither of her adjustment applications were decided prior to the enactment. The court noted that it is unclear whether the CSPA will help petitioner attain permanent residency.

Petitioner, a citizen of Thailand, was extradited for trial on drug charges in Illinois. Once in the U.S., she wrote letters to people in Thailand who were suspected of being involved in the drug trade in order to assist the Drug Enforcement Administration. The government moved to dismiss the charges against her and commenced removal proceedings. In 2006 the Seventh Circuit vacated an order by the BIA finding petitioner removable and ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. On remand, petitioner was allowed to present evidence and to rebut testimony that she was involved in drug trafficking in Thailand; she attempted to establish entitlement to protection under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge issued an order finding petitioner removable; the BIA ordered that her appeal be dismissed. The Seventh Circuit denied appeal. The evidence produced at a full and fair hearing squarely linked petitioner to the serious crime of drug trafficking, barring her from the relief she sought.

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States in 1991 without inspection and was eligible for removal 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)). He married a woman who also lacks legal status. Their three daughters, ages 10-15, are citizens. They are not literate in Spanish and have health problems. In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. Petitioner sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). The immigration judge concluded that removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the citizen-children. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit denied review, first holding that petitioner had standing and that it had jurisdiction to consider whether removal would be unconstitutional with respect to the children, but rejecting the claim on the merits.

The three defendants in this consolidated case were Mexican nationals who were living in the United States illegally. At issue was what evidentiary showing must a defendant, charged with being found in the United States after previously having been deported, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), make before a district court was obliged to consider his request for a lower sentence to account for the absence of a fast-track program in that judicial district. The court held that a district court need not address a fast-track argument unless defendant had shown that he was similarly situated to persons who actually would receive a benefit in a fast-track district. Until defendant met these preconditions, his "disparity" argument was illusory and could be passed over in silence. Accordingly, the court concluded that the fast-track arguments made by all three defendants were illusory and could be passed over in silence. Therefore, the court affirmed each sentence; one defendant's sentence, however, was modified to clarify that his participation in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program was voluntary.

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned the court for review of the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. At issue was whether petitioner's second conviction for domestic battery qualified as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) and thus was an aggravated felony prohibiting him from applying for cancellation. The court held that convictions for domestic battery for causing bodily harm to petitioner's wife was a crime of violence in light of LaGuerre v. Mukasey and United States v. Upton. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review.