Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and re-entry as a previously removed alien. The district court imposed a 420-month sentence. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for improper venue and his sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) venue was proper in the Northern District of Iowa because authorities learned of Defendant's deportation in the Northern District; (2) the district court did not err procedurally by applying an importation enhancement and refusing to grant an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 420-month sentence, as the sentence was substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Rivera-Mendoza" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction and sentence for illegally re-entering the United States after previously having been deported. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's prior conviction for burglary under Cal. Penal Code 459 qualified as a crime of violence under the immigration laws and for sentencing purposes; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under the sentencing guidelines. The Court distinguished the district court's denial of an acceptance of responsibility adjustment here from cases in which district courts interpreted the guidelines to forbid the award of such an adjustment to any defendant who forces the government to prove his guilt at trial. View "United States v. Ramos-Medina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a U.S. citizen employed in international disaster relief assistance, returned from an overseas business trip and was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at Dulles International Airport. An agent seized his laptop and two flash drives after permitting him to copy and retain one computer file and providing Customs Form 6051D indicating that the equipment would be detained for up to 30 days. While the laptop was detained, its hard drive failed, destroying much of its business software. A Customs representative sent a letter seeking to assure plaintiff that a prompt resolution of the issue would be addressed. About 10 weeks after its seizure, the laptop was returned. Plaintiff’s suit alleged breach of an implied-in-fact contract and a taking, with damages totaling $469,480.00 due to lost contracts resulting from inability to access files as well as replacement hardware, software, and warranty costs. The Claims Court dismissed, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently allege a bailment contract and that the property was not taken for a public use within the context of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Kam-Almaz v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, pled guilty in 2007 to felony domestic battery and was charged with removability based on this conviction. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for review of the BIA's decision to affirm the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal, arguing inter alia that the video-conference hearing violated his right to due process. The court held that the video-conference hearing in this case did not violate due process where petitioner failed to establish that the outcome of his hearing could have been affected by the fact that his hearing was conducted by video-conference; the agency considered the factors relevant to petitioner's application for cancellation of removal; and the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny his application. Accordingly, the petition for review was denied in part and dismissed in part. View "Vilchez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. illegally in 1991. In 1997, he pleaded guilty to felony flight after attempting to elude a police officer who had signaled him to stop for speeding. As a first-time offender, he received a sentence of 40 days. In 2006, INS issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), which permits removal of an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), which permits removal of an alien convicted of acts which constitute the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude. Petition conceded the first ground for removability but challenged the second ground. The IJ concluded that because of the wanton or willful mental state required under the state statute and the resulting inference that petitioner had disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the safety of others, his Washington law categorically rose to the level of a CIMT, and ordered removal. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Sixth Circuit denied review. View "Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for adjustment of status and order of removal. At issue was whether petitioner was eligible to adjust his status to legal permanent resident (LPR) status on any basis other than marriage to his K-1 visa sponsor. Because petitioner was originally admitted to the United States on a K-1 nonimmigrant visa, he could not adjust his status to that of a full LPR on any basis other than marriage to his original K-1 visa sponsor. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iqbal" on Justia Law

Petitioner was ordered removed to Mexico in 2004 and appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed. Almost two years later, he moved to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. A motion to reopen must be made within 90 days of the final administrative order of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). He did not make an equitable-tolling argument nor provide sufficient factual support for the Board to consider that argument. The Board held that the motion was time-barred. Two weeks later, moved for reconsideration, attaching new evidence for an equitable tolling argument. The Board denied the motion, holding that the evidence was insufficient and that new evidence may not be submitted with a motion for reconsideration. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. While a petition for certiorari was pending, the Supreme Court held that Congress intended courts to review denials of motions to reopen. On remand, the Seventh Circuit reviewed the merits and upheld the Board. Petitioner unsuccessfully moved the Board to reopen under its sua sponte authority. On appeal, he conceded that his motion was numerically barred and argued that his case presented “exceptional circumstances” under which the Board usually grants such a motion. The Seventh Circuit dismissed. The motion was committed to the Board’s discretion by law and was unreviewable. View "Anaya-Aguilar v. Holder" on Justia Law

Appellant, a Jewish American by birth who has lived in Israel as an Israeli national for over a decade, sought a Certificate of Loss of Nationality (CLN) from the Department of State, claiming that he was entitled to the CLN under two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. The court affirmed the District Court's judgment only insofar as it upheld that Department's decision that appellant was not eligible for CLN under Section 2 of the INA. The court reversed and remanded, however, the district court's judgment dismissing appellant's challenge to the Department decision denying his request for a CLN under Section 1. The agency's statutory interpretation of Section 1, as rendered in the Betancourt Letter, was not entitled to Chevron deference. And, because the Department failed to provide any coherent explanation for its decision regarding the applicability of Section 1, the agency's action was arbitrary and capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking. View "Fox v. Clinton, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant Manuel Avitia-Guillen, a citizen of Mexico, lawfully entered the United States in 1955. He obtained permanent resident status in 1988 but was deported in June 1996 after being convicted of an aggravated felony. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") discovered Defendant in Denver, Colorado, in May 2011. A grand jury indicted Defendant with one count of being found in the United States. At trial, the Government called a fingerprint examiner with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to testify that Defendant's fingerprints matched those on his 1996 deportation records. Defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal, but the district court denied the motion, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district court sentenced Defendant to the low end of the guideline range, 41 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued the district court failed to make adequate findings of reliability with respect to the CBI expert's testimony. "The issue Defendant raises on appeal is extremely narrow[:] . . . the district court erred 'by failing to create an adequate record demonstrating that it satisfied its gatekeeping obligations.'" Defendant did not object to the expert's methodology at trial. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court did not plainly err in its implicit determination that the CBI expert's testimony was based on "reliable principles and methods" that were "reliably applied." View "United States v. Avitia-Guillen" on Justia Law