Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Castilla entered the U.S. for a third time after two deportations and moved to Michigan, where Reyes lived. Reyes made and sold false identification documents to illegal immigrants. Castilla joined the operation. Reyes kept the work room locked, let the others live in the apartment-production facility, gave them false documents for themselves, provided them business cards and cell phones, and kept track of each associate’s sales in a notebook. In 2009, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating. In 2010, executing a search warrant on the apartment, they found Castilla and others. In Castilla’s bedroom, agents found a box of his own fraudulent business cards, a manual with instructions for changing the ribbon on the Zebra card printer, a CD for the Zebra card printer, and a fraudulent driver’s license that was matched to a used Zebra printer ribbon. Convicted of conspiracy to produce and traffic fraudulent identification documents and for possession of document-making implements, Castilla was sentenced to 63 months. The district court applied the three-level managerial/supervisory role enhancement, USSG 3B1.1(b) and a nine-level enhancement under USSG 2L2.1(b)(2)(C), for the offense involving at least 100 documents. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Castilla-Lugo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, his wife, and his children petitioned for review of an order of the BIA affirming the IJ's denial of their application for asylum and rejecting their due process claim. The court affirmed the denial of the petition for asylum where the court could not say that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution if petitioner and his family were to return to Kenya. The court also denied the due process claim where petitioner had no protected interest at stake and, in any event, petitioner has not shown that he suffered the kind of fundamental error required to support a due process challenge. View "Wanyama, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed past and a well-founded fear of future persecution as a result of his resistance to China's coercive family planning policies. The court concluded that substantial evidence in the administrative record as a whole supported the finding that there were serious reasons to believe petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States before arriving in the United States and was therefore ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or withholding of removal under the CAT. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims and denied the petition for review and counsel's motion to withdraw. View "Zheng v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Nunez illegally entered the U.S. in 1992. In 1998, his father’s I-130 Petition on Nunez’s behalf was approved. In 1999, Nunez was convicted of misdemeanor battery. Nunez contends that, on that date, he was illegally removed, but the record only shows that Nunez was subjected to expedited removal a week later, when he attempted to enter California with a resident-alien card for “Mendoza-Gutierrez.” Under oath, Nunez stated that the card was not his; that he lacked documentation to enter; that he had no immigration applications pending; and that he previously had never been in the U.S. Nunez was informed that he could not re-enter for five years. Nunez re-entered in 1999. The IJ concluded that Nunez was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he had not remained physically present in the U.S. for 10 years prior to application, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Before the Board ruled, his wife became a citizen and filed an I-130 petition. Following remand, an IJ held that Nunez was ineligible for adjustment of status because he had illegally re-entered. The Board agreed, although the previous removal order never had been reinstated. Nunez was ineligible for cancellation because he was not physically present for 10 years. The Seventh Circuit denied appeal. View "Nunez-Moron v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Because petitioner did not file a timely petition in the court to review the BIA's initial order in his case, the court's jurisdiction was limited to review of the BIA's order denying the petition to reopen the asylum proceedings. Because the letters at issue did not undermine the BIA's initial determination that petitioner failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution based upon an enumerated ground for relief, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in deciding that petitioner failed to satisfy his heavy evidentiary burden to reopen the removal proceedings. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claim and affirmed the judgment. View "Lopez-Mendez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

The government appealed from the district court's order suppressing evidence found following the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle driven by defendant. The vehicle stop was executed by two officers of the St. Regis Mohawk Police Department (SRMPD), one of whom was also cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer by ICE. The district court held that the vehicle stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked the authority to act as law enforcement officers at the time of the stop. The court held that the violation of the ICE policy requiring prior authorization did not affect the constitutionality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment and that the stop and subsequent search comported with the Fourth Amendment because they were justified by probable cause. Accordingly, the court reversed the decision of the district court. Because the court determined that the stop was a constitutional exercise of designated customs authority, the court did not decide whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of New York police authority. View "United States v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Kouevi lived in Togo. From 2001- 2005, Kouevi conspired to fraudulently obtain “diversity visas,” 8 U.S.C. 1153(c)), for at least 34 people through the American Embassy in Togo. The head of the scheme, Afolabi, paid fees for persons who were eligible for the diversity lottery and assisted them with their paperwork, requiring the applicants to falsely represent that others were their spouses or children, so that those individuals could obtain visas. Kouevi was responsible for false documents and tutoring participants to prepare them for Embassy interviews. Afolabi helped Kouevi fraudulently obtain his own visa and paid his costs to come to the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security arrested Afolabi for bringing young girls to the U.S. and forcing them to work at hair braiding salons, 16 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, for several years, without pay. They were also subjected to beatings and rape. Kouevi was convicted of conspiracy to commit visa fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, and visa fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1546(a) and 2, and sentenced to 26 months imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that his conduct was not criminalized by the part of the statute he was indicted under. View "United States v. Kouevi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum, asserting that he had fled his native country due to political persecution. After the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him, Petitioner argued he was the victim of past political persecution and that, if returned to Guatemala, he would be subject to persecution on account of "membership of a particular social group," namely, the group of Guatemalan nationals repatriated from the United States. The immigration judge denied relief, finding that Petitioner was a credible witness but that the facts did not support his asylum application or other claims for relief. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner's request for statutory withholding of removal necessarily failed, as Petitioner did not establish that he would be persecuted based on his "membership in a particular social group" or his "political opinion." View "Escobar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, sought review of the BIA's order finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal and deeming him ineligible to be admitted on the basis that the Texas assault statute for which he was convicted qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMI). The court held that the BIA's decision was consistent with precedent and its determination was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted of illicit trafficking - an aggravated felony - and also of an offense under a state law relating to a controlled substance. The Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Petitioner based on these offenses. Petitioner filed a responsive pleading seeking to terminate the removal proceedings or, in the alternative, to cancel removal. An immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner's motion to terminate and ordered Petitioner to be removed to Jamaica. The board of immigration appeals (BIA) affirmed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding that Petitioner pled to possessing a controlled substance with intent to sell in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 21a-277(b), that the offense was a subordinate offense constituting "trafficking," and therefore, Petitioner was convicted of drug trafficking as defined by federal law. View "James v. Holder" on Justia Law