Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of three counts of bringing in illegal aliens without presentation and defendant subsequently appealed. At issue was whether the government could deport an illegal alien who could provide exculpatory evidence from a criminal defendant. The court reversed and remanded, holding that the answer was self-evident pursuant to United States v. Ramirez-Lopez. On remand, the district judge shall decide whether to dismiss the charges against defendant with prejudice, as a consequence of the government's conduct. Should the district court permit a retrial, it shall determine whether the eight other deported witnesses were interviewed by the government agents, and if so, what they each said. The government shall provide testimony or declarations from border agents as to whether they interviewed the remaining members of the group and whether they took notes or otherwise recorded the statements. Defendant must also be allowed to present the videotape of Witness Garcia-Garcia's testimony, the transcript or both, as well as any evidence of what the other eight witnesses said. Defendant shall also be entitled to a missing-witness instruction as Witness Garcia-Garcia and, depending on what the district court finds, to the other eight deported witnesses as well. View "United States v. Leal-Del Carmen" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA dismissing his appeal of an order of removal. Petitioner argued that a finding that he engaged in illegal activity could not properly be made by officers at the border and that he was entitled to counsel until a final administrative determination had been made by an IJ and the BIA. The court held that the border officers were permitted to treat petitioner as an applicant for admission based on their conclusion that he had engaged in illegal activity, without waiting for a final administrative determination. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that his statements admitting the attempt to smuggle his niece across the border were coerced and used against him in violation of due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gonzaga-Ortega, et al v. Holder" on Justia Law

ICE officers entered the home Ramos shared with relatives with an administrative warrant for a sister, with no information about the identity or legal status of other occupants. During the next 15 hours, the agents detained and questioned the occupants, under circumstances that were allegedly extremely stressful. Ramos produced documents showing that he is a citizen of Guatemala; he did not produce any documentation that he was lawfully present in the U.S. The IJ denied a motion to suppress evidence found during the raid, although Ramos was detained without a warrant. Ramos asserted that the agents entered his home without valid consent and in violation of administrative regulations. He sought production of documents related to his search, seizure, and arrest, and ICE procedures. The IJ never ruled on that motion, but found Ramos removable. The BIA dismissed an appeal, declining to address a Fourth Amendment claim and finding that any regulatory violations did not alter the outcome. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. The exclusionary rule may apply in cases where constitutional violations by immigration officers are widespread or evidence was obtained as a result of egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment or other liberties that might transgress notions of fundamental fairness and undermine the probative value of the evidence. View "Oliva-Ramos v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Green, a citizen of Jamaica, entered the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2002. In 2006, his status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. Weeks later, he was arrested on charges of possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. He pled guilty. In 2008, Green was arrested again on charges of possession and distribution of a controlled dangerous substance and pled guilty. In 2010, DHS charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Green applied for deferred removal under the Convention Against Torture, testifying that he feared that he would be tortured by the Shower Posse, a Jamaican drug gang. He had witnessed the 1998 killing of a police officer and an informant and had identified the shooters. His sister and his brother were subsequently killed; Green himself had been attacked in downtown Kingston. Although the IJ found Green’s testimony credible, she denied his application; he “failed to meet his burden to establish that the Shower Posse would be acting on behalf of the government of Jamaica or that the government of Jamaica would acquiesce in the actions of the Shower Posse,” as required under CAT. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Green v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Each of the two plaintiffs in this case had resided for several years in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), a territory of the United States, when federal immigration law replaced CNMI immigration law there in 2009. At issue was whether the time plaintiffs resided in the CNMI before 2009 transition date counted toward the five-year residence requirement for naturalization. The court held that, under the clear language of the controlling statute, the district court correctly concluded that the time did not count. View "Eche, et al v. Holder, Jr., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Petitioner Mathias belongs to the Fom ethnic group and his extended family practices the Vodun religion (colloquially known as "voodoo"). Petitioners contended that the BIA erred by analyzing Mathias's fear of persecution based on the potential female genital mutilation (FGM) of his daughter as a derivative claim, instead of as a claim of direct persecution of Mathias. The court denied the petition for review, concluding that the decisions of the IJ and BIA were supported by substantial evidence and that this was not a case where the BIA might reach a different conclusion after a more complete evaluation of the record. The IJ and BIA noted, among other things, that the daughter did not face a well-founded fear of persecution in the form of FGM. View "Hounmenou, et al v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Roye, a 58-year-old native of Jamaica, was admitted to the U.S. in 1984 as the spouse of a citizen. In 1992, he pled guilty to aggravated assault and endangering the welfare of a child by having sexual intercourse with his eight-month old daughter. The trial judge sentenced Roye to six to 20 years’ imprisonment but strongly recommended transfer into a psychiatric facility. Fourteen years later, DHS charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). An Immigration Judge found that Roye granted for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The IJ emphasized testimony indicating “that mentally ill detainees and prisoners are often sexually and physically assaulted in the Jamaican prison system because of the nature of their mental illness” and that Roye will be homeless in Jamaica due to a lack of family ties. The BIA ordered immediate removal. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that the BIA must review the conclusion that the evidence demonstrates that Roye’s persecutors will physically and sexually abuse him in a manner that rises to the level of torture under the CAT, and decide whether Jamaican public officials will consent to or acquiesce in such abuse. View "Roye v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA affirming the decision of the IJ denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that the BIA failed to consider petitioner's opposition in its full factual and political context, and the court rejected the BIA's conclusion that opposition to corruption at one workplace - without evidence that the corruption extended to other workplaces - could not serve as the basis for asylum. Finally, the court concluded that the BIA erroneously failed to consider petitioner's claim of imputed political opinion. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Yu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Martinez, a native of Nicaragua, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1985. In 1989, he married a citizen, had a daughter, and began adjusting his status to lawful permanent resident. In 1990, Martinez pleaded guilty to sexual assault of his eight-year-old stepdaughter. In 1991, prior to sentencing, Martinez traveled to Nicaragua to complete the immigrant visa application process. The consulate approved his application. Martinez was admitted to the U.S.as a permanent resident the following day. He was later sentenced to four years in prison. Martinez was released on parole in 1992. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal in 2009. Martinez argued that he was eligible for adjustment of status under former INA Section 212(c), which waived the bar against status adjustment for convicted aggravated felons who had at least seven years unrelinquished residence, at least five years as an LPR, and had not served more than five years in prison. The IJ found Martinez statutorily ineligible for relief. The BIA agreed that he had “never been lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” The Third Circuit denied review. A person accorded status as “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” upon physical entry, who did not substantively qualify for such status, is barred from relief. View "Martinez v. Atty Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of India, challenged the IJ's finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous application. Petitioner admitted he filed a fabricated asylum application that was supported by fraudulent documents. At issue was whether the written advisals provided on the standard I-589 asylum application form constituted sufficient notice under 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A). Because the court concluded that the asylum application form petitioner signed provided sufficient notice under section 1158(d)(4)(A), the court denied the petition for review. View "Cheema v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law