Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner challenged the district court's ruling that he was not a United States citizen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(5). The court held that Lim v. Mitchell, which required de novo review, was no longer good law, and the court must review the district court's finding of fact for clear error. The court concluded that the district court did not err in placing the burden on petitioner to prove his citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence and then shifting the burden of proof to the government, nor did it err in selecting the "clear and convincing" formulation when assigning the level of proof that the government had to meet. In view of the many undisputed facts and the additional non-erroneous subordinate findings, the court held that the district court's key finding, that petitioner is Salvador Mondaca-Vega, was not clearly erroneous under the "clear and convincing" standard of proof. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Mondaca-Vega v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 911 for making a false claim of citizenship. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial. Defendant argued that his misstatement was not willful because he suffered from a delusion that caused him genuinely to believe that he was a United States citizen. The court concluded that the given instructions, considered as a whole, were adequate in the circumstances of this case. Although defendant's requested instruction more clearly articulated the knowledge requirement, the given instruction was adequate under the circumstances because a "misrepresentation... deliberately made" suggested a knowing falsehood. Combined with the testimony and closing arguments at trial, which focused on what defendant knew, the jury was aware that his subjective belief was the dispositive issue. The court also concluded that there was no plain error in the prosecutor's questioning of defendant's expert witness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Anguiano-Morfin" on Justia Law

Appellees are the named plaintiffs representing a certified class of non-citizens who challenged their prolonged detention, pursuant to certain federal immigration statutes, without individualized bond hearings and determinations to justify their continued detention. The district court entered a preliminary injunction requiring the government to identify all class members detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) and 1225(b), and to provide each of them with a bond hearing before an IJ with power to grant their release. The government appealed. The court held that appellees were likely to succeed on the merits; appellees have clearly shown a risk of irreparable harm; in light of the major hardship posed by needless prolonged detention, the court concluded that the balance of the equities favored appellees; and the public interest also benefitted from a preliminary injunction that ensured federal statues were construed and implemented in a manner that avoided serious constitutional questions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rodriguez v. Robbins" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nicaraguan citizen, sought review of two decisions by the BIA: (1) a decision reversing an IJ's grant of withholding of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and (2) a decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner's conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, in violation of California Penal Code 288(a), was a particularly serious crime, rendering him statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioner's appeal from the denial of withholding of removal presented a live case or controversy. The court granted the petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner committed a particularly serious crime and remanded with instructions that the agency engage in a case-specific analysis in accordance with Matter of Frentescu to determine whether his conviction was a particularly serious crime. The court denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's claim for relief under the CAT because substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of torture. All pending motions in this case were denied. View "Blandino-Medina v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate good moral character. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) on the ground that it violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) presumed an individual to lack good moral character based solely on the length of time served in prison, rather than on the nature of the underlying criminal conduct. Given the wide variation in sentences imposed by different States for the same conduct, petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) allowed disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals. The court rejected petitioner's challenge, concluding that there were plausible reasons for Congress' action. Congress could rationally conclude that the expense and other difficulties of individual determinations justified the inherent imprecision of a prophylactic rule. The court also rejected petitioner's contention that section 1101(f)(7) violated equal protection principles because it relied on the period of incarceration generated by state sentencing regimes that were not uniform in operation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Romero-Ochoa v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial, on adverse credibility grounds, of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he had been, and will be, persecuted because of his practice of Da Zang Gong, a teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination and that the inconsistencies noted by the BIA were such that the court was not compelled to accept petitioner's story. Petitioner's inconsistent statements, his failure to explain why he did not seek to enter the United States during his two-year stay in Mexico, and his voluntary return to China from Mexico, provided an adequate basis for the adverse credibility finding. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Cui v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, who pleaded nolo contendere to assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 364 days in county jail but probation was imposed instead, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that he was removeable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of at least one year's imprisonment could have been imposed. The court concluded that its holding in Gonzales v. Barber - that assault with a deadly weapon under California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude - remained good law. Because CPC 17(b) did not apply and because the minute order designated petitioner's conviction as a felony, the court held that petitioner's conviction was a felony. The felony sentencing provisions of section 245(a)(1) allowed for imprisonment for more than one year. Accordingly, petitioner's conviction was a conviction for a "crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed." Therefore, the court denied the petition. View "Ceron v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty in federal court to an information charging that he was "found in" the United States on or about November 25, 2009, after he had been previously deported. The court joined its sister circuits in holding that U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) could be applied to a deportee "found in" the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326, while he was imprisoned. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Reyes-Ceja" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Robert Silverman and his law firm on behalf of a class of Filipino teachers recruited to work in several school districts in Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Silverman aided and abetted a human trafficking scheme in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1589, 1590, 1592, 1594, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968; breached his fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class; and committed legal malpractice through his role in procuring H-1B non-immigrant visas for the teachers. Silverman brought this interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of his special motion to strike plaintiffs' second amended complaint on the ground that plaintiffs' state law claims violated California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, and invoked Noerr-Pennington immunity against all of plaintiffs' claims. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the denial of a motion for Noerr-Pennington immunity from liability was not an immediately appealable collateral order. The court further held that it did not have pendent jurisdiction over the Noerr-Pennington issue and did not reach the merits of this issue. View "Tanedo, et al v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA ordering his removal from the United States because he violated the terms of his student visa. The court denied the petition, rejecting petitioner's contention that he was eligible for cancellation of removal because he could meet the required ten years of continuous presence in the United States. Petitioner claimed that he qualified for the special continuous presence exception available to honorably discharged aliens who have served in active duty status in the United States military, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(3), because he was out of the country completing military service in South Korea. View "Lim v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law