Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, has lived in the United States since 1972 and in April 2004, he pleaded guilty to, and was sentenced to 96 months imprisonment for, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. At issue was whether the district court properly denied his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as successive and whether Padilla v. Kentucky announced a retroactively applicable new rule of law. The court held that the district court failed to issue Castro v. United States warnings when it recharacterized petitioner's July 2008 motion as a section 2255 petition. However, the court affirmed the district court on the ground that petitioner's July 2010 petition for post-conviction relief was untimely under section 2255. Accordingly, the court affirmed. View "Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a noncitizen from Nigeria, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's decision finding petitioner removable under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), because his conviction of embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. 656 constituted an aggravated felony. The court held that because none of the facts to which petitioner actually and necessarily pleaded to establish the elements of his embezzlement revealed whether that offense was committed with a specific intent to defraud, it was error for the BIA to infer that his conviction was an offense involving fraud or deceit. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the BIA's decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Akinsade v. Holder" on Justia Law

Thiam, a black woman and a member of the Wolof tribe in Mauritania, suffered physical and sexual violence by white Arab members of the military. She was sent to Senegal, where she lived for about 14 years. She arrived in the U.S. in 2004 with a fake Senegalese passport and applied for asylum. Thiam attended three hearings in Cleveland in 2007, but the presiding IJ was in Arlington, Virginia and conducted the hearings via videoconference. For her final hearing, Thiam traveled to Arlington, believing that her credibility would be apparent in a personal appearance. The IJ found Thiam credible, but concluded that she was barred from seeking asylum because she had firmly resettled in Senegal (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi)). The IJ found, that though Thiam did suffer past persecution, improvements in the human rights record of Mauritania indicated that she could return to Mauritania. Thiam appealed and sought remand for consideration of new evidence regarding a military coup in Mauritania. The BIA affirmed, applying Fourth Circuit law. The Sixth Circuit declined transfer to the Fourth Circuit as not in the interest of justice, and remanded. The BIA did not follow its own framework for firm-resettlement determinations. View "Thiam v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction following his guilty plea to illegally transporting aliens within the United States; assisting an inadmissible alien in entering the United States; and illegally being present in the United States after having previously been removed. On appeal, defendant contended, inter alia, that the district court miscalculated the applicable sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines by adding two points to his criminal history pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.1(d) for his commission of an offense while under a criminal justice sentence. The court held that defendant's knowledge that he was subject to a term of supervised release was not required for the district court to impose an enhancement based on the fact that defendant committed the instant crimes while "under a[] criminal justice sentence." The court declined to reach defendant's ineffective assistance claim and dismissed without prejudice. With regard to defendant's remaining claims, the court found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Cambodia, entered the U.S. on a non-immigrant visitor visa, overstayed, and timely applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief. The BIA dismissed. The First Circuit vacated and remanded. The court applied the law concerning corroboration as it existed before passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 302 and noted that the corroboration identified by the IJ as lacking "is far from typical." A letter from the U.S. government to support petitioner's claim that he provided information to the government at risk to himself might be inaccessible. The IJ made no findings concerning the reasonableness of the requirement or petitioner's inability to produce such corroboration. View "Soeung v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his daughter appealed the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff submitted an application for an immigrant visa based on an approved I-130 petition filed by his daughter. The United States Consulate in Mexico denied the application. The district court found that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction to review the consular official's discretionary decisions. The district court also found that it had no jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. 1361, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., or the Declaratory Judgment Act, 5 U.S.C. 702. The court affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims as to Form I-160 and vacated that part of the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims as to his request for reconsideration. The court remanded for the district court to consider whether it had jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act, the APA, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Rivas v. Napolitano, et al." on Justia Law

Following criminal convictions involving controlled substances and a firearm, defendant, an illegal immigrant, was deported to Mexico in 2004. He unlawfully returned to the U.S. in 2008. Less than one year later, he was arrested for domestic violence and obstruction of justice and pled guilty in state court. He was charged with reentry by a previously deported alien, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). The district court rejected an attempt to enter a conditional guilty plea, because he was unwilling to knowingly and voluntarily waive certain trial rights. Convicted, he was sentenced to 41 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed stating that the court did not coerce defendant into proceeding to trial. The plea colloquy transcript suggests that the court diligently and patiently questioned him about his willingness to waive his trial rights. View "United States v. Bahena-Navarro" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision holding that his conviction for misprision of a felony was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The court held that misprision of a felony was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where the BIA relied on a flawed rationale. That an offense contravenes "societal duties" was not enough to make it a crime involving moral turpitude; otherwise, every crime would involve moral turpitude. The court remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's conviction and to consider whether he was alternatively removable as an alien who "has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance." View "Robles-Urrea, et al. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Grenadines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable based on his second-degree assault conviction in violation of New York Law 120.05(2) and on the basis of petitioner's conviction of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in violation of New York Penal Law 110 and 220.3. The court concluded that a conviction for second-degree assault under section 120.05(2) categorically constituted a "crime of violence" for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 16(b). The court also concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky did not overturn the court's precedent holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause was not applicable in the deportation and removal context. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition. View "Morris v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was an alien at the time of his reentry. The court found that there was substantial evidence showing that defendant was an alien when he reentered the United States. The court also found that the nunc pro tunc divorce decree obtained in 2010 purporting to retroactively rearrange defendant's custody status in 1994 did not raise a reasonable doubt as to this alienage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law