Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native of Greece and a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, plead guilty to a felony in 1994. Petitioner later traveled to Greece in 2003 to visit his parents and on his return to the United States, he was treated as an inadmissible alien and placed in removal proceedings. Under the law governing at the time of petitioner's plea, an alien in his situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing his resident alien status, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13). This case presented a question of retroactivity not addressed by Congress: As to an LPR convicted of a crime before the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and 1182(a)(2), which regime governed, the one in force at the time of the conviction, or IIRIRA? Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, the Court held that section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) did not apply to petitioner's conviction. The impact of petitioner's brief travel abroad on his permanent resident status was therefore determined not by IIRIRA, but by the legal regime in force at the time of his conviction. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded for further proceedings. View "Vartelas v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner and her husband, natives and citizens of the People's Republic of China (PRC), petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of their application for asylum and other relief despite a finding by an IJ that petitioner would be subjected to coercive sterilization if returned to the PRC. The court concluded that an IJ's finding that a future even would occur if an applicant was removed was a finding of fact subject to review for clear error and that the BIA properly applied de novo review to an IJ's determination that an applicant had not satisfied her burden to establish an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution. The court also concluded that the BIA could determine the weight to be accorded to State Department country reports. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded the case. View "Huang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Morocco, entered the U.S. in 2001 on a nonimmigrant visa. He overstayed and married a citizen in 2004. In 2006 the two had an argument that involved a physical altercation. Wife had to have brain surgery for her injuries and petitioner was convicted of reckless conduct. He served 11 months. Wife nonetheless filed an I-130 petition to establish that they were married. DHS approved the petition, but charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B). He sought a waiver and adjustment of status. Petitioner and his wife presented different versions of the fight that led to his arrest. The immigration judge ordered removal, finding that petitioner committed a crime involving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The First Circuit denied appeal, finding that reckless conduct under New Hampshire law is inherently a crime involving moral turpitude. View "Idy v. Holder" on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's summary judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that required all adults living in rental housing within the City to obtain an occupancy license conditioned upon the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Villas at Parkside Partners, et al. v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of falsely representing himself to be a U.S. citizen in violation of 18 U.S.C. 911 and of committing identity theft in relation to a false claim of U.S. citizenship in violation of 19 U.S.C. 1028A. At issue was what could constitute a claim of citizenship under section 911. The court held that the "cumulative context" provided a substantial foundation for the jury's conclusion of willful misrepresentation and the jury's verdict was consistent with decisions in other circuits that required a direct claim of U.S. citizenship to sustain a conviction under section 911. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Castillo-Pena" on Justia Law

This case involved the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), which repealed the waiver of deportation under Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) 212(c). Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of section 212(c) relief. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied petitioner a continuance because she was eligible to apply for a waiver of deportation under INA 212(c). The court held that the BIA did not err when it held that INA 212(h)'s seven-year continuous presence requirement was not impermissibly retroactive. Accordingly, the petition for review was granted and the case remanded to allow petitioner a continuance to apply for the former 212(c) waiver of removal. The petition was denied as to petitioner's claims arising under section 212(h). View "Peng, et al. v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1989, petitioner illegal entered the U.S. from Mexico. He married another illegal alien in 1992 and they have three children, 5-18 years old, who are U.S. citizens. In 2000 INS commenced removal. Petitioner sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)1. An immigration judge found that petitioner had established requisite continuous physical presence and good moral character, but failed to show that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. The ALJ’s manner of questioning and exclusion of testimony from one of petitioner’s daughters did not deprive petitioner of a full and fair hearing.View "Delgado v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Panama and a citizen of Spain, entered the U.S. as a non-immigrant visitor in 1998. In 2000 he married a U.S. citizen. His status was adjusted to conditional lawful permanent resident. In 2004, petitioner and his wife appeared together at an interview in support of his I-751 petition to remove conditions on residence; petitioner affirmed, under oath, that he did not have children. After the two divorced, petitioner amended the birth certificates of children born to another woman during his marriage, to reflect that he was their father. In 2006, petitioner filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization listing the two as his children. USCIS determined that petitioner had provided false testimony during the 2004 interview and denied his petition on grounds that he lacked the requisite good moral character. In 2009 USCIS initiated removal. The district court ruled in favor of the government, noting uncontradicted evidence that petitioner, under penalty of perjury, gave false evidence in order to receive a benefit in an immigration proceeding. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding there was no material issue of fact. View "Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

In 1998, petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica and a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 50 grams of "crack" cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846 and sentenced to 168 months imprisonment, After his release from prison, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a warrant and took petitioner into custody. He has been incarcerated by ICE since March, 2008 without a bond hearing. The district court denied habeas corpus. The Third Circuit reversed. Under the pre-removal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), ICE can detain any alien pending a decision in removal proceedings and can release on bond any alien not otherwise ineligible for such release. Section 1226 provides for mandatory detention of aliens who are removable on account of commission of enumerated offenses, including aggravated felonies such as petitioner's. Once there is an order of removal, detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), under which ICE must remove the alien within 90 days. Evaluating the situation under section 1226, the court determined that petitioner had been detained for longer than "reasonable." View "Leslie v. Att'y Gen. of United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Jordan, entered the U.S. with his family in 1997, when he was eight years old. In 2009, removal proceedings were initiated and petitioner conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT, arguing that because of his claimed conversion from Islam to Christianity in 2008, he will be persecuted if returned to Jordan. There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children. Because the conversion occurred while petitioner was the subject of a criminal investigation, it was regarded as suspect. The IJ denied petitioner's applications on grounds that he and his father were not credible witnesses. The BIA affirmed. The First Circuit vacated, finding the overall negative credibility finding suspect.View "Jabri v. Holder" on Justia Law