Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was ineligible for withholding of removal and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because his conviction for resisting arrest constituted a particularly serious crime. The court held that it had jurisdiction over petitioner's challenges, which were premised on constitutional and legal considerations, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C). Because the BIA had not adequately explained its reasons for designating petitioner's conviction a particularly serious crime, the court granted the petition with respect to the particularly serious crime determination and remanded to the BIA for an appropriate explanation. As to petitioner's CAT claim for deferral of removal, the court denied the petition. View " Alphonsus v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to third degree rape under Oregon law in December 1999. In 2002, he pleaded guilty for failing to register as a sex offender and voluntarily left the country some time later. After being indicted in 2010 for illegally reentering the country after having been previously removed, defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that his 2004 order of removal was invalid because the IJ incorrectly determined that his Oregon statutory rape conviction was an aggravated felony and, as a result, erroneously informed him that he was not eligible for voluntary departure. The court concluded that defendant's underlying removal proceeding was consistent with due process because he was correctly informed that he was ineligible for discretionary relief from removal under the applicable law at the time of his removal hearing. Accordingly, the court reversed the dismissal of the indictment against defendant and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Vidal-Mendoza" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that his conviction for simple kidnapping under California Penal Code (CPC) 207(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that simple kidnapping under CPC 207(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where simple kidnapping did not involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affected a protected class of victim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's crime. View " Castrijon-Garcia v Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for review of a determination by the USCIS that his felony conviction of assault with intent to commit rape rendered him ineligible to become naturalized as a United States citizen. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the USCIS as a matter of law was justified. Contrary to petitioner's claims, he had not been deprived of due process of law or been the victim of the improper retroactive application of a statute. Although he was barred from naturalization as a citizen, his status as a legal permanent resident remained in full force. View "Alocozy v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for voluntary departure. Petitioner argued that the IJ erred by considering facts which, in a criminal case, might be evidence of a crime. He contended that in doing so, the IJ was using a crime as evidence against him even though he had not then been convicted of the crime alleged against him. The evidence of petitioner's sexual conduct with a minor was probative as to his bad character and undesirability for permanent residency, and it was therefore properly considered by the IJ. Although petitioner had not been convicted of a crime for the activity, he admitted the underlying facts before the IJ. Further, the IJ's discretionary consideration of that admission did not violate petitioner's due process rights by denying him a presumption of innocence. Accordingly, the court held that the IJ committed no error and denied the petition. View "Rojas v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a final order of removal issued by the BIA, adopting and approving the IJ's finding that she was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). The court concluded that the IJ did not abuse his discretion by admitting Form I-213 and her admitted actions were more than mere reluctant acquiescence in the plan of another, but were instead affirmative acts in violation of section 1182(a)(6)(E)(i). Because the IJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the court denied the petition for review. View "Sanchez v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, an undocumented Mexican national, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's claim that her due process rights were violated by the fact that her husband was granted cancellation of removal four years earlier based on similar facts. The court vacated and remanded, however, on petitioner's claim that the BIA erred as a matter of law when it held that an applicant for cancellation of removal's ability to demonstrate hardship to his qualifying relatives was necessarily undercut by the possibility that the applicant could have alternative means to immigrate at some undefined point in the future. View "Arteaga-De Alvarez, et al v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 and his sentence. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment; the district court properly determined that defendant's 2007 conviction for possession of methamphetamine for sale under Cal. Health & Safety Code 11378 was a drug trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A); and the district court's imposition of supervised release was reasonable. View "United States v. Valdavinos-Torres" on Justia Law

Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an illegal reentry charge after deportation. Defendant claimed that the IJ failed to advise him about the availability of voluntary departure. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that an alien could not collaterally attack his removal order by claiming that an immigration judge failed to advise him about relief for which he was statutorily ineligible, even if the government did not introduce before the IJ noticeable documentation of the aggravated felony conviction that rendered him ineligible. The court also held that defendant's sentence was valid. View "United States v. Bustos-Ochoa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, filed an action in District Court alleging that the BIA's decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) prohibited APA claims that indirectly challenged a removal order. All claims challenging the procedure and substance of agency determinations "inextricably linked" to the order of removal were prohibited by section 1252(a)(5), no matter how the claims were framed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martinez v. Napolitano, et al" on Justia Law