Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Liu, a 50-year-old citizen of China, came to the U.S. in 2000 on a nonimmigrant visa, after protesting the loss of his job at a state-owned factory. He overstayed and, in removal proceedings, requested asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. He testified that he was persecuted after protesting layoffs and was beaten in jail. He claimed that officials told his wife that he would face “serious consequences” if he continued to make trouble. He stated that he never belonged to any political organization in China or the United States and acknowledged that he “didn’t do anything to protest or criticize the government of China.” The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision, denying relief and ordering removal. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Tapia entered the U.S. illegally in 1992. He was removed to Mexico in 1997 following conviction for a hit-and-run accident. Tapia did not seek review, but reentered illegally and was again removed. He reentered again and DHS reinstated the 1997 removal order in 2010. Tapia contended that the 1997 order was invalid because he did not receive proper notice of his right to counsel and because his convictions did not meet the statutory definition of aggravated felonies. The Seventh Circuit rejected the claims as untimely and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision to execute a removal order. Tapia filed a motion to reopen, which was rejected, and the Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Changing the caption on the document from “motion for stay” to “motion to reopen” does not create a right of judicial review. The only thing that a court of appeals could review would be the original removal order and that review must be sought within 30 days of the order’s reinstatement. Tapia missed the deadline. View "Lemos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Medina first entered the U.S. illegally, at age 16, in 1982. He was deported after two 1989 convictions, one for selling or transporting cocaine and the other for attempted robbery. He returned and was convicted of illegal reentry and again deported. He entered unlawfully a third time and was convicted of being found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). He appealed the 37-month sentence he received, contending that he should not have received a sixteen-level enhancement for being deported after a felony conviction for a “drug trafficking offense” where the imposed sentence exceeded 13 months or after a felony “crime of violence.” Medina argued that his 1989 convictions did not fall within those definitions under the 1989 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and so the enhancement does not apply. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; the crimes qualify under the 2010 Sentencing Guidelines, which were the guidelines in effect at the time of Medina’s sentencing. View "United States v. Medina" on Justia Law

Kimani, a citizen of Kenya, entered the U.S. in 2000 on a visitor’s visa, overstayed, and, three years later, married a citizen. She applied for a visa on his behalf, and he filed a corresponding request for adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent resident. Investigation revealed that in 2003 Kimani had registered to vote and had represented that he was a U.S. citizen. In November 2004 he voted in the general election, violating 18 U.S.C. 611, and 8 U.S.C.1182(a)(10)(D)(i). An immigration judge denied Kimani’s petition and ordered his removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Kimani’s problem is not that other people are ahead of him in a queue for visas; it is that he is ineligible for adjustment of status whether or not he has a visa. View "Kimani v. Holder" on Justia Law

Elizabeth, a citizen of the Philippines, married John, a U.S. citizen, in 2003 in the Philippines. The State Department issued a nonimmigrant K-3 visa pending action on John’s request for her permanent residence as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. After arriving in the U.S., Elizabeth obtained a driver’s license. The State of Illinois also sent her a voter registration card, and she voted in the 2006 election. Immigration officials discovered that Elizabeth had voted. She was ordered removed for violating 18 U.S.C. 611, which rendered her inadmissible and ineligible for benefit as John’s spouse, 8 U.S.C. 182(a)(10)(D)(i). The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit remanded for determination of whether Elizabeth showed her passport and visa to the state official; whether that official raised the subject of voting knowing that she was an alien; and whether that official checked the box claiming citizenship after Elizabeth signed the forms. View "Keathley v. Holder" on Justia Law

El-Gazawy a citizen of Jordan, entered the U.S. in 1990 as a non-immigrant, overstayed, and failed to appear for special registration in 2003, required by the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System program. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security served notice that he was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(A) and 1305. At his hearing, El-Gazawy admitted the charges and stated that he would seek cancellation of removal (8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)) or voluntary departure (8 U.S.C. 1229c). The IJ allowed 90 days for the necessary paperwork and advised that failing to timely file fingerprints could result in denial of relief. With an additional schedule change, El-Gazawy had about 14 months to file the necessary paperwork. The IJ concluded that no good cause had been demonstrated for delay, deemed the cancellation claim abandoned, and granted voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed an appeal. El-Gazawy had been represented by attorney Abuzir throughout, but obtained new counsel for filing a motion to reopen, seven months later, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. El-Gazawy claimed that he had given notice to Abuzir and had filed a claim with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The BIA denied his motions. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "El-Gazawy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Laguna immigrated to the U.S. with his parents in 1967, and became a lawful permanent resident. In 2001 he was convicted of unlawful possession of a stolen motor vehicle, with other related offenses. Because those felonies qualified as crimes of moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), an immigration judge ordered Laguna removed and required Laguna to obtain a Polish passport. In 2004, after he finished serving his state sentences, Immigration and Custom Enforcement released Laguna on an order of supervision, which also required Laguna to obtain a passport. In 2010 Laguna finally completed the requisite application. The Polish consulate confirmed that his passport would be available on April 21, 2010. Laguna refused to pick up the passport and was detained and convicted of willfully interfering with a final deportation order (8 U.S.C. 1253(a)(1)(B) and (C) and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court’s exclusion of evidence that ICE’s liberal treatment of Laguna during supervision negated the element of intent.View "United States v. Laguna" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Colombia, illegally entered the U.S. in 1982. In 1985, he was convicted of drug offenses, 21 U.S.C. 846 and 841(a)(1), was sentenced to five years in prison; in 1987 he was deported to Colombia. About five years after his deportation, he reentered the U.S. and was arrested twice, but managed to avoid deportation. In 2010 he was arrested in Illinois for driving under the influence. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were informed of his illegal status. Defendant was indicted on one count of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and 6 U.S.C. 202(4) and pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court determined his criminal history category to be 3 and, after applying a 16-level enhancement (U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)), determined his offense level to be 21, resulting in a calculated Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months’ imprisonment. Neither the government nor defendant objected to this calculation. He was sentenced at the low-end of the Guidelines range to 46 months in prison, claiming that his 1985 conviction was stale and that the calculation overstated the seriousness of his current reentry offense. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Marin-Castano" on Justia Law

Marinov, a citizen of Bulgaria, entered the U.S. in 2005 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor and remained beyond the date authorized. He applied for asylum. He was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). An attorney entered an appearance on Marinov’s behalf, conceded removability, and obtained transfer of venue. In December 2009, the immigration court served notice to Marinov’s attorney at the address provided on his appearance form, advising that a hearing was set for August 3, 2010. The attorney attended the hearing; Marinov did not. The IJ ordered removal in absentia. On September 24, Marinov, represented by new counsel, filed a motion to reopen based on a lack of notice, exceptional circumstances, and ineffective assistance of former counsel. He alleged that former counsel made misrepresentations to the IJ and included a copy of an attorney disciplinary complaint. The IJ denied Marinov’s motion, deciding that he received proper notice and had not shown that former counsel was informed of the allegations or afforded an opportunity to respond. The BIA rejected the argument that the ARDC complaint satisfied this requirement, concluding that the bar complaint and notice to counsel were two separate requirements. The Seventh Circuit denied review. View "Marinov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Rivas, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1970 as a lawful permanent resident. In 2009, DHS charged Rivas with removability because of a 1980 conviction for statutory rape. At his hearing Rivas argued that the conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony and that he was not removable. The IJ rejected the argument and a subsequent motion to reopen. In 2010 Rivas was removed to Mexico. Two months later Rivas filed a petition for habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the claim barred by 8 U.S.C. 1252(g), which prevents courts from hearing challenges to the execution of removal orders, and also that Rivas was not “in custody” as required under 28 U.S.C. 2241(c). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Rivas’s situation is sympathetic, but consideration was precluded by multiple jurisdictional bars. View "Rivas-Melendrez v. Napolitano" on Justia Law