Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration officials “shall take into custody any‖ deportable alien who has committed various crimes” when the alien is released from detention for those crimes, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1). The Act requires officials to hold such aliens without any possibility of release while awaiting removal. Sylvain, a citizen of Haiti, entered the U.S. as a legal permanent resident in 1988. He has been convicted of more than 10 drug-related crimes and served a three-year prison sentence for making and selling cocaine. He was convicted for unlawfully possessing a weapon and for criminal mischief. Sylvain was last arrested in 2007 for possessing drugs. He pled guilty and received a conditional discharge. Under New York law, a conditional discharge does not require imprisonment or probation. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials arrested him in 2011, concluding that he was deportable and subject to mandatory detention, although he was last in custody four years earlier. The district court granted his petition for habeas corpus, finding that mandatory detention did not apply. Sylvain received a hearing, paid bond, and is not in custody. His next removal hearing is in 2014. The Third Circuit reversed; mandatory detention does not require immediate detention. View "Sylvain v. Att'y Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted in state court of attempted arson in the second degree in violation of New York law, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that the attempted arson in the second degree was a felony that, by its nature, involved a substantial risk of the intentional use of physical force against the person or property of another. Therefore, attempted arson in the second degree was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), and an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 101(a)(43)(F), (U). Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for review. View "Santana v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioners Martinez and Garcia sought review of the BIA's dismissal of their appeal of the IJ's order of removal after the IJ denied their motions to suppress evidence uncovered by a warrantless entry. In the order, the IJ conflated Martinez's testimony with that of his son. Both the IJ and the BIA found the officers' warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances solely based on the son's yell to Garcia "not to open the door" because immigration officers were outside. Assuming petitioners' accounts of the ICE officers' conduct were true, any Fourth Amendment violations they suffered were not sufficiently egregious to entitle them to the remedy they seek - exclusion of decisive evidence in a civil removal proceeding. Although both the IJ and BIA clearly erred in their treatment of Martinez's and his son's testimonies, the error did not necessitate remand because the error was not prejudicial. The court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's burden-shifting argument pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252 because they failed to raise this issue at the administrative level. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Carcamo, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Sejdini and his family are from the former Yugoslavia. In 1987, Sejdini, then less than a year old, entered the U.S., traveling with his mother by boat from Canada. In 1999, the government placed Sejdini in removal proceedings. In 2003, an immigration judge granted Sejdini a special-rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which in 1997 had amended the Immigration and Nationality Act. In 2010, Sejdini was convicted in Michigan state court for possession of Vicodin and ecstasy, for which he received a prison sentence of 18 months to 10 years. The government began removal proceedings; Sejdini applied for cancellation of removal under section 240A(a) of the INA, but the immigration judge barred him, from applying for this relief because he had already received cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act. The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review, concluding that cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Act is cancellation of removal under section 240A of the INA. View "Sejdini v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal entry after deportation and was sentenced to fifty months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of his prison term. The court concluded that the district court committed no legal error by its interpretation of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Instead the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range by enhancing defendant's offense level, pursuant to section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), in that he had been convicted of a drug trafficking felony in Oregon. Therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina-Campo" 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

In 2004, Yeremin, a Russian citizen who lawfully entered the U.S. in 1999, pleaded guilty (18 U.S.C. 1028(f)) to conspiracy to traffic in identification documents. Section 1028(a)(3) prohibits knowingly possessing with intent to use unlawfully or transfer unlawfully five or more identification documents or false identification documents. The Department of Homeland Security initiated proceedings and an immigration judge ordered removal, finding that Yeremin’s conviction was for an offense qualifying as a crime involving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. Under the categorical approach, Yeremin’s conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude because the conduct prohibited by the statute he was convicted under inherently involves deceit. View "Yeremin v. Holder" 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 native and citizen of Brazil, sought a continuance of his deportation proceedings to await the availability of an immigrant visa based on his approved I-140 petition. The IJ denied petitioner's motion for a continuance and the BIA affirmed the IJ's judgment. Petitioner then moved for reconsideration, which was also denied. The court agreed with petitioner's argument that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Hashmi and Matter of Rajah. Accordingly, the court granted the petition, vacated the decision of the BIA, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ferreira v. U.S. Attorney General" 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