Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a 68-year-old citizen of Ethiopia, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that substantial evidence on the administrative record supported the BIA's determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate past persecution. The court held, however, that the BIA did not adequately consider one aspect of petitioner's distinct claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution that was supported by credible testimony and by other record evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further consideration. View "Tegegn v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The Mungiki are a violent, outlawed sect, notorious for extortion, torture, and murder by dismemberment. The Kenyan government has been unable to bring the group under control. At age 14, Wanjiru accepted his teacher’s invitation to join the Mungiki, unaware of the group’s character. He was afraid to leave because the Mungiki punish defectors by execution. At age 20 he came to the U.S. on a student visa in 2005. He briefly attended school. He was arrested in 2009, following a sexual encounter with a woman he met in a nightclub while intoxicated. Wanjiru pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and received a suspended sentence, requiring surrender to immigration authorities. He petitioned for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and deferral under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The IJ found that Wanjiru was convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” was not persuaded of the Kenyan government’s acquiescence in the threat to Wanjiru, and denied relief. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit remanded, stating that the CAT does not exist only for persons with unblemished records. The possibility of deferring removal rather than withholding it exists for people who might be undesirables but who are entitled not to be sent to experience torture.View "Wanjiru v. Holder" on Justia Law

In a direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Enrique De La Cruz challenged the district court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress evidence the United States obtained during an investigative seizure. ICE agents detained Petitioner while looking for another person they believed to be in the United States illegally. Upon review of his fake identification card, agents discovered that Petitioner was himself unlawfully in the United States after having been previously deported. On that basis, the agents arrested him. A federal grand jury indicted Petitioner for unlawfully reentering the United States after a previous deportation. Petitioner moved to suppress the evidence agents obtained from him arguing that, at the time the agents asked him for his identification, they were no longer justified in detaining him because the agents no longer had reasonable suspicion to believe that he was involved in criminal activity. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Petitioner's motion. He then entered a conditional guilty plea, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), reserving the right to appeal the district court’s suppression ruling. Upon review of the matter, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the Government failed to establish that an objective officer would have had reasonable suspicion to believe that Petitioner was involved in criminal activity once the agents determined that he was not the original person they were looking for and before Petitioner provided the agents with the false identification card. The Court reversed the district court’s decision denying Petitioner's suppression motion and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "United States v. De La Cruz" on Justia Law

Clarke cooperated in a scheme to defraud her employer. The scheme netted more than $250,000; Clarke’s share was $50,000. She pled guilty to committing a fraudulent act that caused a loss of $8,000 and was sentenced to 14 months. Clarke was a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. An alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); “aggravated felony” includes an offense that involves fraud in which the loss exceeds $10,000. Removal proceedings were instituted after Clarke completed her prison sentence. She filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion asking that her conviction be set aside because neither the judge nor her lawyer had advised her that she could be removed if convicted. Her lawyer had told her there might be “immigration consequences.” The district court denied the motion. She has been removed to Jamaica. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The one-year statute of limitations begins to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final. A lawyer’s failure to advise his client concerning a critical consequence of conviction can be a “fact” supporting a claim of ineffective assistance, but in this case it could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence within a year after the plea. View "Clarke v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that his conviction for simple kidnapping under California Penal Code (CPC) 207(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that simple kidnapping under CPC 207(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where simple kidnapping did not involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affected a protected class of victim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's crime. View " Castrijon-Garcia v Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Liberia, filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner conceded his removability, and the immigration judge (IJ) scheduled a merits hearing to adjudicate Petitioner's applications. Because Petitioner's counsel failed to submit required biometric and biographical information to the Department of Homeland Security, the IJ found that Petitioner had abandoned his asylum application and ordered him removed to Liberia. Petitioner did not appeal. Three years later, Petitioner moved to reopen his case, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. The IJ denied the motion as untimely. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner should have the benefit of the equitable tolling doctrine. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, agreeing with the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner's motion to reopen was untimely, as Petitioner had not diligently pursued his rights. View "Bead v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without inspection. After the Department of Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings, Petitioner conceded removability and cross-applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United National Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's cross-application and entered an order of removal. Petitioner appealed, contending that threats to his life or freedom because of his membership in a gang precluded his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the order. In support of his motion, he argued, for the first time, that his family constituted a particular social group and that he feared persecution on account of his family membership, among other things. The BIA denied the motion because it did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA's original decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner in this situation may not proffer, as the basis for a motion to reconsider, a ground for relief which, though previously available, was not previously asserted. View "Martinez-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum and ordering him removed. At issue was whether the BIA erred when it overturned the IJ's factual findings that petitioner would likely be forcibly sterilized upon returning to China. The court concluded that the BIA committed legal error by making its own de novo factual findings and therefore, the court vacated the BIA's decision and remanded for the BIA to review the IJ's decision under the proper clear error standard. View "Zhu v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner as an alien who entered the United States without inspection. Although he conceded removability, Petitioner indicated that he intended to use the proceeding to obtain adjustment of his immigration status. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's application, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that his application was timely filed. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the IJ erred by relying on the stamped date of his application rather than the original submission date and therefore in not adjusting his status. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) dismissed Petitioner's appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ's determination. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that the BIA did not err in its judgment. View "Wu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for review of a determination by the USCIS that his felony conviction of assault with intent to commit rape rendered him ineligible to become naturalized as a United States citizen. The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the USCIS as a matter of law was justified. Contrary to petitioner's claims, he had not been deprived of due process of law or been the victim of the improper retroactive application of a statute. Although he was barred from naturalization as a citizen, his status as a legal permanent resident remained in full force. View "Alocozy v. USCIS, et al" on Justia Law