Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Cambodian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner requested asylum based upon her fear of political persecution in Cambodia where she belonged to the Sam Rainsy Party, an opposition party. The court held that petitioner failed to establish past and future persecution; the court rejected petitioner's argument that her confidentiality was breached when the Notice of Agreement and her husband's death certificate were shown to a Phnom Penh municipal official, raising an inference that she was seeking asylum; and petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the IJ's consideration of certain evidence submitted by the government. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "La v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

This case arose from a finding that a lawful permanent resident of the United States' conviction of burglary of a vehicle under New Mexico's burglary statute rendered him removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for committing a crime of violence. The court concluded that the burglary under the New Mexico statute did constitute a crime of violence where it entailed a significant likelihood that force would be used against another's property. Because the court did not have jurisdiction over petitioner's remaining claims, the court dismissed them. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Escudero-Arciniega v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Lara, a citizen of Mexico, was 19 when he first entered the U.S. illegally in 1985. His wife and child joined him; they had three more children, each a citizen of the U.S. by birth. Lara was deported following a 1999 conviction for selling $50 worth of cocaine. In 2001, he unlawfully returned to the U.S., pled guilty to illegal reentry, and was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the district court’s application of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), which requires an offense level increase of 16 levels if, prior to deportation, the defendant is convicted of a drug offense that results in a term of imprisonment exceeding 13 months. Lara argued that he did not receive the sentence until his probation on the drug offense was revoked. The court found that he ultimately received a three-year sentence for the drug trafficking offense prior to deportation. The court also upheld the decision not to grant a downward departure under Note 8, U.S.S.G. 2L1.2, which applies to unlawful entry if a defendant has “assimilated” to the local culture, noting that Lara did not move to the U.S. until he was an adult and has a lengthy criminal history. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Lara" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the district court convicting him of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. 1326, following a conditional plea. While defendant's 1998 immigration proceedings were pending, he was arrested for robbery and detained in New York. Although he notified the INS of his new address, the INS did not properly process the address change and failed to notify defendant of his ongoing immigration proceedings, so that he was ordered removed in absentia. Defendant was removed to Jamaica but he subsequently returned to the United States. He was arrested again and indicted for illegal reentry. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was given no notice of the 1998 removal proceedings. Because the district court properly considered defendant's completed criminal conduct in ruling that the entry of the removal order against defendant in abstentia was not fundamentally unfair because there was no reasonable probability that defendant would have obtained relief had he received notice of the removal proceeding and been present, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daley" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a husband and wife and their son, were citizens and natives of Armenia who were ordered removed from the United States following the denial of their asylum claim in 1997. They resided in the country until 2011, when they filed a motion to reopen their asylum claim. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied this motion, and Petitioners appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that, although the BIA's refusal to open must be affirmed, the Court would stay the mandate as to the son for ninety days to allow him to apply for relief because he was a strong candidate for deferred action. To ensure the family was not removed before the government had time to consider the question, the Court also stayed the mandate for ninety days as to the husband and wife. View "Gasparian v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Kenya, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA specifically incorporated the IJ's adequate findings and specifically foreclosed petitioner's additional arguments from affecting the outcome, the BIA did not err in affirming the IJ's decision; the BIA did not err in rejecting petitioner's evidentiary contention that the BIA erred by failing to address the admissibility of medical records; and the BIA did not engage in improper factfinding. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "R.K.N. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

In August 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) commenced "regular" removal proceedings against Petitioner Antonio Aguilar-Aguilar, a citizen of Mexico. In response to the Notice to Appear (NTA), Petitioner conceded his removal as "[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted." Petitioner informed the immigration judge (IJ), however, that he was in the process of seeking discretionary relief in the form of adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident as provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). Over Petitioner's objection, DHS then moved to dismiss the NTA as improvidently issued and to terminate Petitioner's proceedings without prejudice. As an alien without lawful residency who had been convicted of an aggravated felony, Petitioner was deportable and thus amenable to "expedited" removal proceedings. After the IJ granted DHS's motion, DHS commenced proceedings against Petitioner and issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) directing his removal to Mexico. The FARO found Petitioner "ineligible for any relief from removal that [DHS] may grant in an exercise of discretion." Petitioner now asks us to review a FARO he claims DHS issued in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The Tenth Circuit denied review: "Petitioner simply 'has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief." And that is all Petitioner [sought]" on appeal. View "Aguilar-Aguilar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, filed an action in District Court alleging that the BIA's decision to deny his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-706. The court held that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5) prohibited APA claims that indirectly challenged a removal order. All claims challenging the procedure and substance of agency determinations "inextricably linked" to the order of removal were prohibited by section 1252(a)(5), no matter how the claims were framed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Martinez v. Napolitano, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Russia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and adjustment of status. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(C) over petitioner's challenge to the discretionary determination finding him ineligible for withholding because the crime underlying his removeability was a particularly serious crime; the court upheld the revocation of petitioner's asylee status pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 208.24(a)(2), also due to his conviction; and the court denied petitioner's constitutional challenge to the provisions precluding adjustment of status after his asylee status was revoked. View "Pechenkov v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Malaysian citizen who has overstayed his immigrant visa in the United States, sought an adjustment of immigration status. Petitioner invoked the so-called "grandfathering" exception for beneficiaries of labor-certification applications filed by April 30, 2001 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1255(i)(1)(B)(ii). The Attorney General has interpreted that provision as applying only to beneficiaries actually listed on labor-certification applications as of April 30, 2001. The court held that 8 C.F.R. 245.10(j) and section 1245.10(j), in which the Attorney General set forth this interpretation, was entitled to Chevron deference. Accordingly, the IJ and BIA properly determined that petitioner was ineligible for a change of immigration status because he was not listed as a beneficiary on an application for labor certification until after April 30, 2001. The court denied the petition for review. View "Lee v. Holder" on Justia Law