Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Deported following a 1996 conviction for attempted first degree murder and armed violence, Lara, a citizen of Mexico, returned to the U.S. and was arrested for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. After a second illegal return, he was convicted of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2) and sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Lara argued that the district judge should have disqualified himself from hearing Lara’s motion to dismiss the indictment or erred in failing to dismiss the indictment because Lara was erroneously denied an opportunity to seek discretionary relief from deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act section 212(c) in his first deportation proceeding in 1997–1998. The Seventh Circuit rejected the claims. The judge was not disqualified from ruling on Lara’s motion based on the judge’s service as INS District Counsel when Lara was first deported. The court did not reach the question of whether precedents interpreting 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) foreclose Lara’s collateral attack on his underlying deportation order because counsel conceded the issue. View "United States v. Lara-Unzueta" on Justia Law

Petitioners applied for asylum in the U.S., claiming that they had been persecuted as members of the “social group” of timberlands owners and would face risks if returned to Honduras. Organized squatters, “La Via Campesina,” invade agricultural lands and take over production; if they raise the national flag and assert that owners are not using the land, police and judges are unwilling to evict them. Timber lands remain out of production for years while trees mature, making them targets for campesinos, who cut and sell the timber. Petitioners assert that campesinos occupied their land in 2008 and that they fear for their lives should they return to assert ownership rights. An immigration judge denied asylum, finding (under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A)) that the past and feared future harm do not amount to persecution; that the squatters’ acts did not occur because of petitioners’ membership in any particular group but were for profit, with indifference to who was injured; and that the squatters’ acts could not be imputed to the government. The BIA concluded that the campesinos are thieves whose own interests, rather than antipathy toward petitioners, led to the invasion and that Honduras is willing and able to control the campesinos; after petitioners obtained a court order, officers did remove the squatters. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Urbina-Dore v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Russia, overstayed their visas and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioners' applications but granted them voluntary departure. In regards to Petitioners' asylum application, the IJ found that Petitioner Pavel Ivanov's testimony about mistreatment he experienced because of his Pentecostal faith was credible and consistent, but that the persecution Ivanov experienced in Russia was not "on account of" his Pentecostal faith. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's asylum determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the order of the BIA affirming the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that Ivanov established his eligibility for asylum. View "Ivanov v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Antigua, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. The court concluded that a conviction under Fla. Stat. 893.13(1)(a)(2) for the possession of cannabis with the intent to sell or deliver was not, as a matter of law, a drug trafficking aggravated felony. Petitioner and others convicted under this statute could still be able to meet their burden to demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal, and should be given a chance to shoulder that burden. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacating and remanding for further proceedings. View "Donawa v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Indonesia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The BIA adopted the IJ's reasoning and concluded that the harassment and intimidation petitioner experienced because of his religion and ethnicity did not rise to the level of persecution because they lacked severity or they were isolated acts of criminal conduct or lawlessness. Further, petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear or that he faced a clear probability of future persecution warranting relief if returned to Indonesia. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence supporting the IJ's determination that petitioner was not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. Further, petitioner failed to meet the more demanding standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Supangat v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple from Pakistan, sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal from a final order of removal under section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B), because they remained in the United States for longer than permitted. The order also held that the wife was removeable for misrepresenting a material fact, and declared that the wife had filed a frivolous asylum application. Where, as here, the sole witness refused to answer questions, DHS could not satisfy its burden in the absence of any substantive evidence based solely upon the adverse inference drawn from silence. Therefore, the court concluded that DHS did not meet its burden of establishing the grounds for termination of asylum by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the court did not reach the merits of petitioners' remaining arguments. The court granted the petition for review. View "Urooj v. Holder" on Justia Law

In her representation of a client charged with alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. 1324, Migdal, an attorney who has served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender for nearly 25 years, had a number of disagreements with the federal prosecutor, who ultimately moved for sanctions against Migdal. The prosecutor failed to follow Department of Justice policy requiring supervisory approval of sanctions requests. Despite the government withdrawing the motion and indicating that it did not believe that Migdal acted in bad faith, the district court entered orders strongly publicly reprimanding Migdal. The Sixth Circuit vacated, stating that the record does not support any basis for the orders. View "United States v. Llanez-Garcia" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States illegally. Petitioner later sought relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), asserting that he was likely to be tortured by gang members if he were returned to his native country. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal, concluding that Petitioner was not credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not commit legal error in denying Petitioner's request for relief under the CAT because the conclusion that Petitioner was not credible was supported by substantial evidence. View "Martinez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of El Salvador, was an ex-member of a violent criminal street gang based in the United States. After Petitioner was charged as removable, Petitioner conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Before the immigration judge (IJ), Petitioner claimed that he would face persecution and torture due to his former gang membership if repatriated. The IJ denied Petitioner's applications, concluding that as a former member of the gang, Petitioner was not a member of a protected social group eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) the agency's decision that Petitioner was not a member of a particular social group must stand; and (2) the BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner did not qualify for relief under the CAT. View "Cantarero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner Arturo Velasco appealed an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that dismissed his appeal of an immigration judge's (IJ) order denying his application for cancellation of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Because petitioner had been granted suspension of deportation during prior deportation proceedings, he was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Velasco v. Holder" on Justia Law