Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen and native of India, challenged the IJ's finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous application. Petitioner admitted he filed a fabricated asylum application that was supported by fraudulent documents. At issue was whether the written advisals provided on the standard I-589 asylum application form constituted sufficient notice under 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A). Because the court concluded that the asylum application form petitioner signed provided sufficient notice under section 1158(d)(4)(A), the court denied the petition for review. View "Cheema v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was not eligible for waiver of inadmissibility because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that the crime of sexual battery under California law was categorically broader than the federal generic crime of "sexual abuse of a minor" because the California crime could be committed against a victim of any age, while the federal generic offense required proof that the victim was a minor. The court also concluded that none of the evidence the court was permitted to consider under the modified categorical approach established that petitioner's victim was a minor. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded the matter to the BIA. View "Sanchez-Avalos, et al. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Philippine citizen, petitioned for review of a BIA decision declaring him ineligible for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 212(c), on the ground that he had served a "term of imprisonment" of over five years for conviction of an aggravated felony. Petitioner contended that the BIA improperly included in his "term of imprisonment" the entire period that he spent in psychiatric pre-trial civil confinement pending a determination of his competence to stand trial. Because the court could not confidently approximate how much time petitioner would have actually served in prison had he never spent time in pre-trial psychiatric confinement, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for a determination of the amount of constructive good time credit to which he was entitled for the period of his civil confinement. View "Corpuz v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican national, sought review of 8 C.F.R. 208.31, arguing that the regulation was unlawful because it precluded him from applying for asylum. The Government sought to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was still considering whether petitioner had a reasonable fear of persecution, which could permit him to apply for withholding of removal. The court held that because DHS had not completed all proceedings pursuant to section 208.31 that would determine whether or not plaintiff would be removed, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the petition. View "Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review from an order by the BIA affirming an order of removal by the IJ. The IJ found petitioner removeable for having been convicted of possession of a controlled substance in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11377(a). The court held that the record was clear that petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a controlled substance offense that supported the order of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Cabantac v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Honduras and a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order finding him removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. At issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was whether Petitioner's conviction under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice qualified as an "aggravated felony" under the modified categorical approach as explained in the Court's recent en banc decision in United Sates v. Aguila-Montes de Oca. The Court granted the petition, concluding that Petitioner's Article 92 conviction was not an aggravated felony and Petitioner was therefore not removable. Remanded with instructions to vacate the removal order against Petitioner. View "Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) order upholding an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' original decision, the Court relied on Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder to hold that Petitioner could impute her father's legal status to herself to meet the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement under section 1229b(a)(1). The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez. On remand, the Ninth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision to deny cancellation of removal, holding (1) because Mercado-Zazueta was no longer valid precedent on the issue of imputation under section 1229b, Petitioner's imputation argument making use of her father's lawful permanent residence failed; and (2) Petitioner, on her own, lacked the requisite lawful permanent residence. View "Mojica v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant, an alien, was convicted of robbery under Cal. Penal Code 211 in 1994 and again in 1996. Defendant later pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawful reentry after he illegally reentered the United States. The presentence report recommended a sixteen-level enhancement in the offense level for Defendant's prior robbery convictions, which it identified as crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Defendant objected to the enhancement, arguing that after a recent decision by the California Supreme Court, convictions under section 211 were no longer categorical crimes of violence. The district court rejected this argument and imposed the enhancement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a conviction under section 211 remains a categorical crime of violence under the "enumerated offenses" definition in section 2L1.2. View "United States v. Flores-Mejia" on Justia Law

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) granted Petitioner's asylum application in 1996. In 2003, the INS ceased to exist, and its functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. One of the Department's agencies is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In 2004, the USCIS sent Petitioner a termination notice informing him that his asylum status had been terminated by the USCIS and that he was placed in removal proceedings. Petitioner moved to terminate the removal proceedings on the ground that his asylum status had not properly been terminated. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded she lacked jurisdiction to review an asylum officer's termination of asylum status and ordered Petitioner removed to India. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's orders of removal, holding (1) asylum status can only terminate through the Attorney General; and (2) the regulations pursuant to which the Department of Homeland Security terminates asylum status are ultra vires because the governing statute confers that authority exclusively on the the Attorney General. Remanded. View "Nijar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was born was born in El Salvador and was admitted to the United States as legal permanent resident in 1992. In 2006, Petitioner pled guilty to resisting an executive officer in violation of Cal. Penal Code 69. In 2007, the Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings against Petitioner. An immigration judge ultimately found that Petitioner's conviction was a categorical crime of violence, rendering Petitioner removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's petition for review, holding that because the record of Defendant's conviction may be incomplete, the case was remanded to the BIA to apply the modified categorical approach to the question of whether Defendant committed a crime of violence and whether he was removable. View "Flores-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law