Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160. The BIA determined that petitioner did not meet NACARA's definition of a child at the time that his father was granted relief, and that the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208, 116 Stat. 927, did not apply to him. The court concluded that petitioner had not demonstrated that the CSPA applied to NACARA, or that failure of Congress to apply the CSPA to NACARA violated the equal protection component of due process. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review where petitioner was relegated to and bound by the multitude of other immigration provisions that Congress has adopted. View "Tista v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of conspiracy to transport aliens who unlawfully came to or entered the United States and three counts of transporting such aliens, in each case for financial gain. The court held that the admission of the forms filled out by Border Patrol agents did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court held, however, that the district court erred in admitting the forms under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay because this exception did not apply to records of government agencies. Here, the aliens' statements that they were in the United States illegally did not qualify as public records. The district court's error in admitting such statements did not substantially affect the verdict and, therefore, was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morales" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming an IJ's decision finding her removable, denying her temporary protective status (TPS) relief, and granting her voluntary departure in lieu of removal. Petitioner argued that she was denied due process when the government placed her in removal proceedings without her husband but she did not raise this argument before the IJ or the BIA. The court concluded that petitioner's claim did not fall within the exception to the exhaustion requirement because the IJ or BIA could have addressed petitioner's claim if she had raised it. The court did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue because she failed to exhaust her claim. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Sola v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico admitted to the United States in 1976 as a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's decision that he was ineligible for relief from removal under former Immigration and Naturalization Act 212(c), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), because his conviction for an aggravated felony was the result of a trial. The court concluded that Vartelas v. Holder made it clear that the essential inquiry of retroactivity analysis was to determine whether the new law attached new legal consequences to completed conduct and that evidence regarding reliance was not required to prove that a new law was impermissibly retroactive. The repeal of section 212(c) relief impermissibly attached new legal consequences to the trial convictions of aliens like petitioner by rendering these aliens ineligible for relief as a result of convictions that pre-dated the repeal of section 212(c). Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's order, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of illegal reentry. The court concluded, inter alia, that the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3162(a)(2); the district court abused its discretion in granting the government's motion to reopen its case-in-chief to introduce defendant's mother's naturalization certificate; and defendant was clearly prejudiced by the district court's leniency in allowing the prosecution to fill the gaps it had left in its case. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded for an evidentiary hearing into whether the prosecution's failure to disclose the certificate in discovery or at any point before the proofs had closed was willful; and, if it was willful, the district court shall impose appropriate sanctions. View "United States v. Hernandez-Meza" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, appealed his conviction for being an alien who, after having been removed on five occasions, was "found in" the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. Defendant had already been convicted in 2009 for violating section 1326 based on the same 2006 removal order that formed the predicate for the conviction in this case. The court concluded, inter alia, that the government introduced sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction where it introduced ample proof of the statutory elements at trial and defendant did not contend otherwise; the court rejected defendant's contention that, in analyzing his double jeopardy defense, the court was limited to reviewing the evidence presented by the jury; there was no error, much less plain error, in the district court's refusal to vacate defendant's conviction based on a double jeopardy defense he never raised; and an immigration officer's failure to inform him of his ability to request withdrawal of his application for admission did not violate his due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sanchez-Aguilar" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of her habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. At issue was whether aliens who were removable, but not yet subject to a removal order, were "in custody" for purposes of section 2241. The court held that they were not. In this case, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's habeas petition because she was not in custody for purposes of section 2241. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying the petition and dismissed the case. View "Veltmann-Barragan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100. Proposition 100 commands that Arizona state courts could not set bail for serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof was evident or the presumption great as to the charge. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs have not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United State's Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws were preempted by federal immigration law. The court concluded that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed the Proposition 100 laws to further the state's legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes were brought to trial. View "Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding her ineligible for voluntary departure for failure to establish the physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(1)(A). The BIA concluded that the IJ correctly determined that she failed to demonstrate that exceptional and extremely unusual hardship would result for her children and saw "no clear error" in the IJ's reasoning denying removal. The court had jurisdiction to consider the petition because the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, restored appellate jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law in challenges to denials of voluntary departure under section 1229c. The court interpreted "physically present" under section 1229c(b)(1)(A) as requiring uninterrupted presence in the United States for at least one year and denied the petition for review for failure to meet this statutory requirement. View "Corro-Barragan v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, challenging the district court's failure to order production of certain U.S. Border Patrol dispatch tapes. Without listening to the tapes, the district court concluded that defendant's showing of materiality was speculative. The tapes could have been crucial to defendant's ability to assess the reliability of the Border Patrol agent's testimony and to cross-examine him effectively. Moreover, the tapes were clearly relevant to defendant's location and the official restraint defense. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in excluding potentially exculpatory evidence. View "United States v. Muniz-Jaquez" on Justia Law