Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court reversed the BIA's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded for the BIA to determine whether petitioner had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a political opinion or whether he was more likely than not to be persecuted on account of a political opinion. The court denied the petition with regards to petitioner's claims for relief under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show that he was more likely than not to be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. Accordingly, the court granted and remanded in part and denied in part. View "Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The defendant’s sentence, under the heading “additional imprisonment terms,” states that the “defendant is to be turned over to the proper immigration authorities for deportation proceedings upon completion of term of incarceration. If deported, defendant is to remain outside the United States and is not to return without the written consent of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” The Seventh Circuit struck the provision as unauthorized. Only an immigration judge may order removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(a)(3), unless the prosecutor and immigration officials request that the district judge hold a removal hearing, a request not made in this case. A district judge may order, as a condition of supervised release, that a defendant be turned over to immigration officials, but if there is no order of supervised release, as here, imposition of such a condition is ultra vires. The court noted that there is no need for the “added measure” in this case, because the defendant is an aggravated felon. An aggravated felon who is an alien is removable upon the completion of his prison sentence, removal proceedings must be begun before the end of his prison term, and he must be detained until completion, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(B), 1228(a)(1)-(2), (3)(A). View "United States v. Zamudio" on Justia Law

Suazo is a Honduran immigrant. He entered the U.S. without inspection in 1998. He has been in the U.S. continuously since that time. In 1999, Suazo was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) due to his Honduran citizenship. His TPS designation has been continuously renewed due to his continued good moral character, but could potentially be discontinued anytime without notice. In 2010, Suazo married Stacey, who filed an Immediate Relative I-130 Petition on behalf of her husband. Suazo filed an accompanying I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status form, seeking to become a Lawful Permanent Resident (8 U.S.C. 1255). The Suazos had an interview with immigration officials. Stacey’s petition was approved, providing an independent basis to become an LPR. Suazo’s LPR Application, however, was denied because he entered without inspection. The district court dismissed their petition, deferring to the government’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101–1537. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, stating that it was “disturbed by the Government’s incessant and injudicious opposition in cases like this, where the only purpose seems to be a general policy of opposition for the sake of opposition.” View "Flores v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs." on Justia Law

The petitioner, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. in 2001, at the age of 18, and applied for asylum on the ground that if returned to China she would be punished for having refused to marry a Communist Party official. Her application for asylum was denied and in 2004 she was ordered removed. She stayed and applied to reopen her removal proceeding in order to apply for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground of changed conditions in China. In 2011 she had converted to Christianity, and she argued that if removed to China her religious beliefs would compel her to join a Christian church not recognized as legitimate by the Chinese government and to proselytize, which the government forbids, and as a result she would face persecution. The BIA rejected her argument, reasoning that her personal circumstances changed, as opposed to country conditions. The Seventh Circuit vacated, noting evidence of religious persecution in China. View "Shu Liu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Because the reading of an I-214 Form was "normally attendant to arrest and custody," and the Border Patrol agent made not effort to question defendant or secure a waiver of her rights, the court held that his actions were not the functional equivalent of express questioning such that they were an "interrogation" in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. Further, based on the circumstances, defendant was not subjected to the functional equivalent of interrogation. Because defendant was not subjected to interrogation or its functional equivalent, the court affirmed the district court's motion to suppress her post-arrest statements. View "United States v. Morgan" on Justia Law

Since entering the U.S. from Mexico in 1993, Garcia-Segura has had arrests. He was first removed in 2003 after serving two years in jail for possessing cocaine. Less than two months later, he was arrested in the U.S. for delivering cocaine to an undercover officer. After serving part of his nine-year prison sentence, he was removed a second time in 2007 but returned within three days. In 2009, he encountered immigration officials while incarcerated on charges of possession of cocaine and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was charged with unauthorized presence in the U.S. after removal, 18 U.S.C. 1326(a). He pleaded guilty and sought a 19-month reduction to account for time he served in county jail after immigration officials learned of his illegal presence but before he was charged. He argued that, had the government charged him when immigration officials first discovered him, he would have received concurrent sentences. The government responded that concurrent sentences would have been inappropriate because the state crimes were unrelated to the illegal-reentry and that his recidivism merited a more severe sentence. The district court imposed a sentence of 90 months’ imprisonment, within the guideline range of 77 to 96 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Segura" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Senegalese citizen, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the denial of his petition for adjustment of status. The government initiated removal proceedings against petitioner after he failed to comply with the conditions of his non-immigrant student visa. The IJ denied petitioner's request for relief, finding that he was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status because he provided material support to a terrorism organization while in Senegal. The IJ further held that even if petitioner was eligible for relief, the IJ would deny relief as a matter of discretion. The BIA affirmed and petitioner sought review of that decision. The court denied the petition for review because it did not have jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment. View "Diallo v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Bitsin, a citizen of Bulgaria, entered the U.S. in 2005. Before his visitor’s visa expired, Bitsin applied for a student visa, assisted by an attorney recommended by the college. Bitsin claimed that he believed that he could “just stay,” but not work, while his application was pending and that he was unable to locate the attorney. In 2007 removal proceedings, Bitsin applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Bitsin testified that his father, a retired Bulgarian military officer, owned a private security company that threatened the interests of the Galev Brothers crime syndicate, also in the security services business. Bitsin testified concerning a shooting incident and that his father was taken into protective custody, while other families left the country. The Galev Brothers were acquitted; to Bitsin’s knowledge, his father remains under protection. Another cooperating witness was murdered while in police custody and his father’s neighbors were killed when a bomb exploded in their garage. An IJ held that Bitsin’s application for asylum was time-barred and that Bitsin had not established that he was more likely than not to suffer persecution should he be returned to Bulgaria. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit rejected a petition for review. View "Bitsin v. Holder" on Justia Law