Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
by
Defendant is a United States citizen with a history of convictions for smuggling illegal aliens. At issue was whether defendant encouraged or induced an illegal alien to reside in the United States or aided and abetted the commission of this crime merely by escorting that alien from a fast food restaurant near the border to a nearby vehicle. The court concluded that encouraging an illegal alien to reside in the United States must mean something more than merely transporting such an alien within this country. On this scant record, no rational trier of fact could conclude that defendant encouraged an illegal alien to reside in the United States. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to prove that defendant aided and abetted the commission of the crime. The court vacated the district court's judgment revoking defendant's supervised release and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. View "United States v. Thum" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation, seeking a judgment of acquittal. The court concluded that so long as the documents in an A-file have been properly admitted in the criminal case, and the jury has been instructed as to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, which is higher than the standard required in a deportation hearing, such documents may be considered by the jury and, depending on their contents, may constitute sufficient proof of alienage if the jury so concludes. Under Jackson v. Virginia, the jury verdict must stand where, as here, after receiving proper instructions, the jury concluded that defendant was guilty on all elements of illegal reentry and the verdict was supported with sufficient evidence. A rational trier of fact could certainly come to the conclusion that the Form I-213 was accurate. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying a judgment of acquittal and affirmed. View "United States v. Ruiz-Lopez" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a citizen of China, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA that he was not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. Petitioner sought asylum on the ground that his wife had suffered a forcible abortion and had been sterilized. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the BIA's decision where a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to find either that petitioner offered resistance to China's one-child policy or that he suffered persecution. The court also concluded that remand for further proceedings to gather and submit evidence in support of his application under Matter of J-S- was not necessary where petitioner had an opportunity to seek remand and may not wait until this point to make such a request. The particularized facts of this case did not support petitioner's tardy request for remand where there was no reason to believe that he would be able to supply new evidence now. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "He v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination based on petitioner's various lies to U.S. officials and to the district court judge, especially about her identity and country of origin, and petitioner's equivocation during her interview with the IJ. The court also concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief under withholding of removal because petitioner could not overcome the adverse credibility determination where the IJ considered the additional corroborating documents presented by petitioner and found them to be insufficient to rehabilitate her testimony that she was a victim of domestic abuse. The court deferred to the IJ and BIA's conclusion that relief under the CAT was unavailable. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Garcia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's order dismissing his appeal of an IJ's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the agency's reasonable determination that petitioner was not credible under the totality of the circumstances: petitioner's non-responsive demeanor during cross-examination; affirmative misrepresentations of his residence for the purpose of gaining an advantage in forum; submission of a fraudulent church membership certification for the purpose of gaining an advantage in forum; and lack of detailed testimony. Accordingly, the court concluded that the agency properly denied asylum and withholding claims. The court denied the petition for review. View "Jin v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault on a federal officer and illegally entering the United States. The court vacated the conviction for assault on a federal officer and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant was deported during the pendency of the appeal. The government requested that the court affirm the conviction, without prejudice to a later request by him to vacate the conviction, should he return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at retrial. The court saw no reason to apply United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, which only concerned resentencing. Given the government's authority to permit defendant to return for retrial, and counsel's assurances that defendant would be willing to do so, this case was unlikely to languish for an indefinite period before the district court, should the government choose to retry defendant. More importantly, defendant's conviction for assault on a federal officer will have been reversed, unless and until he should be retried, he must be presumed innocent of that charge. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Barrios-Siguenza" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of his removal order under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C., 110 Stat. 3009-546. Petitioner argued that the Act cannot retroactively eliminate his right to renew his application for relief from reinstatement. The court rejected petitioner's argument because he did nothing before the Act's effective date ten years later. Although petitioner's initial application for adjustment of status was denied on the merits in 1987, he did nothing to renew his application during the decade that passed before the Act would become effective. Accordingly, the court denied the petition where petitioner had no vested right. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Defendant, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with attempted reentry after a prior removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that defendant's removal as an alien "not admitted or paroled" as alleged in the Notice to Appear was not "fundamentally unfair" where the termination of his temporary resident status returned him to the status of an inadmissible alien subject to removal; defendant was foreclosed from demonstrating prejudice because INA 212(h) did not provide relief for aliens removed for illegal presence in the United States without admission or parole in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), the sole basis of defendant's removal; and defendant did not preserve his claim that the IJ failed to advise him of his right to counsel and/or obtain a valid waiver of the right to counsel. Finally, the district court's imposition of a below-Guidelines fine was not procedurally erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Hernandez-Arias" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision finding him inadmissible and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that the conviction under which petitioner was convicted, California Health & Safety Code 11377(a), was a divisible statute under Descamps v. United States, and therefore, the court applied the modified categorical approach in analyzing his prior convictions. The court concluded that the government satisfied its burden in proving that petitioner was twice convicted of methamphetamine, a controlled substance listed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner inadmissible based on his prior convictions. However, the court remanded because the BIA failed to address petitioner's due process claims regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel and bias by the IJ. Finally, the court dismissed petitioner's unexhausted equal protection claim for lack of jurisdiction. View "Coronado v. Holder" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that petitioner's testimony was not credible where her demeanor undermined her credibility and her testimony was extremely superficial and could have easily been memorized. The IJ also concluded that petitioner's testimony was unpersuasive and not supported by reasonably obtainable corroborating evidence. Because the IJ's well-supported demeanor findings were entitled to special deference and the IJ appropriately considered the record as a whole and the totality of the circumstances, the court was not compelled to conclude that petitioner was credible. Therefore, the court deferred to the IJ's adverse credibility determination, and gave no weight to petitioner's testimony. The remaining evidence in the record did not compel the court to overturn the IJ's determination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Huang v. Holder" on Justia Law