Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Bitsin, a citizen of Bulgaria, entered the U.S. in 2005. Before his visitor’s visa expired, Bitsin applied for a student visa, assisted by an attorney recommended by the college. Bitsin claimed that he believed that he could “just stay,” but not work, while his application was pending and that he was unable to locate the attorney. In 2007 removal proceedings, Bitsin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Bitsin testified that his father, a retired Bulgarian military officer, owned a private security company that threatened the interests of the Galev Brothers crime syndicate, also in the security services business. Bitsin testified concerning a shooting incident and that his father was taken into protective custody, while other families left the country. The Galev Brothers were acquitted; to Bitsin’s knowledge, his father remains under protection. Another cooperating witness was murdered while in police custody and his father’s neighbors were killed when a bomb exploded in their garage. An IJ held that Bitsin’s application for asylum was time-barred and that Bitsin had not established that he was more likely than not to suffer persecution should he be returned to Bulgaria. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit rejected a petition for review. View "Bitsin v. Holder" on Justia Law

Husband, Sirbu, and wife, Prodan, entered the U.S. as nonimmigrant tourists in 2009 and overstayed their visas. They then filed a timely application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Sirbu’s persecution claim is based on politically motivated mistreatment that occurred in Moldova between 2000 and 2009; he claims to fear prosecution based on his active opposition to the Communist Party. The government responded by charging them as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). An immigration judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit granted their petition for review and remanded, finding that the immigration judge and the Board applied the wrong legal standard in holding that the facts did not “compel” a finding of past persecution. If the Board concludes that Sirbu has demonstrated past persecution, the burden will shift to the government to prove that changed circumstances mean that Sirbu’s fear of persecution in Moldova is no longer well-founded. View "Sirbu v. Holder" on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen from Fujian Province, entered the U.S. in 1997 and is the mother of two boys born in the U.S. She sought asylum on the ground that she is likely to be forcibly sterilized if returned to China. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied her application on the ground that she has no well-founded fear of sterilization. The immigration judge also found that she could relocate to a part of China in which the one-child policy is not enforced as enthusiastically as in Fujian. The Seventh Circuit vacated, first noting that the 2007 petition was timely because the birth of a second child resulted in changed circumstances, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D). The petitioner claims that after the birth of that child, Chinese authorities, who may have learned of the birth from her parents’ customary party to celebrate it, ordered her (via a letter to her father) to report for sterilization and subsequently revoked her village registration. The court noted that forced sterilization and forced abortion in Fujian have been documented and stated that the Board has not attempted “to construct an empirical basis … for its skeptical attitude toward these applicants.” View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Avila applied for adjustment of status based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen in 1999. The couple has two daughters. He has been employed laying countertops since approximately 1997. DHS concluded that Avila was ineligible for adjustment of status based on its determination that he attempted to enter in 1997, by representing himself as a U.S. citizen, and that he actually entered at a later date without presenting himself for inspection. DHS charged that Avila was removable as an alien present without inspection or admission, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(I); and (2) as an alien who falsely represented himself to be a U.S. citizen for an immigration benefit, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). Avila denied making a false claim of citizenship, but conceded removability as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and sought relief under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(A). An Immigration Judge found him removable on both grounds and denied adjustment of status and voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) affirmed. The Seventh Circuit vacated, holding that even assuming that Avila presented a baptismal certificate, there was no evidence indicating that he made any oral statements or even used the name of the person on the baptismal certificate. View "Avila v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican native, first entered the U.S. illegally before June 1988. He was convicted of receiving stolen property, auto theft, attempting to pass a fraudulent check, selling cocaine, and forgeries, and was deported in 1992. In 1994, he burglarized Nebraska construction companies. He was deported again in 1999. By 2005, defendant had returned and was convicted of burglarizing companies, stealing payroll checks, and fraudulently cashing checks. He was deported for the third time in 2008. In 2010 defendant stole blank checks from Illinois and Iowa businesses. Three banks cashed checks, losing more than $42,000. Defendant was charged with unlawful reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and 1326(b)(2); bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344; conspiracy to utter forged securities, 18 U.S.C. 371; and uttering forged securities, 18 U.S.C. 513(a). Defendant pleaded guilty unlawful reentry and to three bank fraud counts,. The district court sentenced him to a total of 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by 36 months of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence. Neither party objected to the sentencing reports at the time, but both agree that the sentence was based on an improper U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and that the error affected defendant’s substantial rights. View "United States v. Tovar-Pina" on Justia Law

Ni came to the U.S. in 2001 from Fujian Province, China. An Immigration Judge ordered him removed in 2003, but he has remained in the U.S., and has started a family. In 2011, following the birth of his second child, Ni moved to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that he will personally face forced sterilization under China’s “one-child policy” if he returns to Fujian Province, a form of persecution based on “political opinion” for which asylum may be granted, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(B). The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Ni’s motion, holding that his evidence was not sufficient to establish a change in circumstances or country conditions, as generally required when an applicant moves to reopen more than 90 days after entry of a final administrative order. The Seventh Circuit granted review, noting that courts of appeals have received scores of similar petitions involving Fujian Province in recent years, and have regularly upheld the BIA’s refusal to grant relief. “Routine can be numbing, however, and it can lead to errors. Here, the BIA failed meaningfully to address documents bolstering Ni’s assertion that family planning officials in and around his hometown recently launched a crackdown on those who flout the “one-child policy.” View "Ni v. Holder" on Justia Law

For more than two years, members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), an organization that violently opposes the existence of Israel, tried to recruit Jabr to join their group. Jabr resisted because he is a member of Fatah, a political party that, according to Jabr, is open to cooperation with Israel. PIJ members harassed him, beat him, and labeled him a traitor to their cause. After surviving a brutal attack in 2006, Jabr fled to the U.S. Within a year of arriving, Jabr sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Jabr claimed that he feared returning to Palestine because the same individuals associated with the PIJ that hurt him before will attack him again. The immigration judge denied his application. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit granted review, finding that the IJ and BIA overlooked material evidence demonstrating that Jabr suffered past persecution on account of his political opinion. View "Jabr v. Holder" on Justia Law

The defendant pleaded guilty to being in the U.S. illegally after having been removed. The judge sentenced him to 84 months in prison. The statutory maximum prison sentence for illegal reentry is usually 2 years, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), but removal after conviction for an aggravated felony (defendant had two such convictions) increases the maximum to 20 years. § 1326(b)(2). Defendant’s appellate attorney asked to be allowed to withdraw from the case on the ground that there is no colorable basis for appealing, but also stated that the district court imposed conditions beyond its authority. The Seventh Circuit modified the judgment of the district court to eliminate the post-release terms concerning the use of controlled substances, drug tests, and collection of a DNA sample, and otherwise dismissed the appeal, granting the lawyer’s motion to withdraw. View "United States v. Gutierrez-Ceja" on Justia Law

Zheng, a native of China, arrived in the U.S. in 1991 and applied for asylum, which was denied. The INS charged him with removability in 1998, but Zheng renewed his request for asylum, asserting that his wife (who arrived from China in 1994) would be forcibly sterilized under China’s one-child policy because they had two children. The immigration judge denied his application, relying on Zheng’s lack of credibility, and the BIA affirmed in 2002. Zheng remained in the U.S. and filed three motions to reopen, which were denied as untimely and successive and because Zheng failed to demonstrate changed country conditions as to forced sterilization, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. In 2011, Zheng filed a fourth motion, arguing that he would be persecuted in China because he converted to Christianity in 2010 while in immigration detention. He submitted evidence to show that China’s treatment of Christians had materially worsened since 1999. The BIA rejected the claim. The Seventh Circuit denied appeal. BIA’s conclusory rejection of Zheng’s argument was error, but was harmless, given the highly generalized nature of Zheng’s evidence, which failed to show with any meaningful level of specificity that the persecution against Zheng’s practice of Christianity had materially worsened since 1999. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Rodriquez entered the U.S. illegally in 1988 and came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security in 2005, following a misdemeanor DUI conviction. He subsequently pleaded guilty to using a fraudulent social security card, 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). He sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to his children, who are U.S. citizens, but failed to timely comply with the IJ’s request for biometrics. The IJ deemed the petition abandoned and ordered removal, after which Rodriguez provided the information. Following a remand, DHS notified the BIA that Rodriguez had been removed. BIA withdrew the remand. The Seventh Circuit remanded. An IJ then held that Rodriguez was ineligible for cancellation of removal, based on his conviction of a crime of moral turpitude (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C)). The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal, holding that fraudulent use of a social security card is a crime involving moral turpitude. View "Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder" on Justia Law