Justia Immigration Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. The court held that petitioner failed to establish that any mistreatment in MS-13 occurred because of his membership in a particular social group because petitioner's articulated social group was not sufficiently narrowed to cover a discrete class of persons who would be perceived as a group by the rest of society. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Gaitan v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

In 2000, petitioner, a 12-year-old citizen of Argentina, entered the U.S. under the visa waiver program, 8 U.S.C. 1189(a). In 2011, ICE agents, executing an arrest warrant for her brother, took petitioner into custody and scheduled removal without an appearance before an immigration judge, based on petitioner remaining for more than the 90 days permitted by the vwp. She argued that the removal order was invalid because she was a minor when she entered this country and could not waive any procedural rights and that she did not receive procedural protections to which she would have been entitled absent such a waiver. The Third Circuit denied her appeal, finding no prejudice resulting from enforcement of the allegedly-defective waiver. Petitioner would not have been allowed to enter without signing the waiver; if she had been of majority age and had knowingly and voluntarily had executed the waiver, she would not have been entitled to the procedural protections normally afforded to an alien prior to removal. View "Vera v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA denying his application for voluntary departure. Petitioner was convicted for disorderly conduct involving prostitution under California Penal Code 647(b) and attempting to dissuade a witness or victim under California Penal Code 136.1(c). The court held that the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioner's conviction under section 647(b) constituted a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because petitioner was convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude, he was deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and the court denied his petition for review. View "Rohit v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff represented a class of legal immigrants in the state of Washington adversely affected by its recent termination of a state-funded food assistance program for legal immigrants, which exclusively benefitted Washington resident aliens who became ineligible for federal food stamps following the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. Plaintiff contended that the state, by eliminating food assistance to class members while continuing to administer federal food assistance to U.S. citizens and certain qualified aliens, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and, by failing to provide class members adequate pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to be heard, also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Because plaintiff failed even to allege that the State treated her less favorably than a similarly situated citizen of the State, her claim of alienage discrimination failed on the merits. The court agreed with the State that plaintiff lacked the concrete and particularized interest required for standing to claim a procedural due process violation. Consequently, plaintiff either lacked standing or would not succeed on the merits of her claims. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Pimentel v. Dreyfus, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, appealed the BIA's decision affirming an IJ's finding that she filed a frivolous asylum application. At issue was whether (1) a "frivolousness finding" could be entered against an alien who had withdrawn her asylum application; and (2) an IJ retained any discretion to decline to make a frivolousness finding. The court held that the BIA's conclusion that a withdrawn asylum application could serve as the basis of a frivolousness finding was reasonable, but that the BIA's decision that the IJ lacked discretion not to make such a finding was unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court denied the petition in part and granted in part, vacating the BIA's decision and remanding for further proceedings. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to lying about his U.S. citizenship on a Firearms Transaction Record form which he completed while attempting to purchase a handgun. Defendant also pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Defendant appealed the district court's decision on his ineffective counsel claim where defendant claimed counsel failed to independently research and investigate the derivative citizenship defense. The court concluded that defendant's guilty pleas were not entered knowingly or voluntarily because counsel advised him without investigating derivative citizenship. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Juarez" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Salvador Mendoza-Lopez appeals his sentence, arguing the district court denied him his right of allocution. Mendoza-Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful re-entry after removal. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) recommended a sentence of seventy months. Defendant filed motions for departure and variance, seeking a forty-month sentence. He argued he qualified for a downward departure under the Guidelines because his criminal history category over-represented the seriousness of his prior record. At sentencing, Defendant's counsel reiterated at length his arguments for a departure and variance. The district court, in a lengthy statement from the bench, denied both motions and accepted the PSR's recommended Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. Immediately thereafter the court said: "[i]t's the Court['s] intention to sentence within that Guideline range." It then invited both Defendant's counsel, and Defendant himself to address "where within that range this Court should sentence." The court assured defense counsel it had taken into account the Guidelines' factors and would continue to do so when it imposed sentence. At his opportunity to speak, Defendant said: "I would simply like to say that I apologize, I’m sorry for having come back. I’d like you to know that I have small children in Mexico who need me to support them by working. That’s really all." The district court sentenced Defendant to seventy months, stating that it was "sympathetic with the fact that the defendant has a wife and two small children that very much need him back home." Defendant appealed his sentence, arguing the district court violated his right of allocution by definitively announcing its intention to impose a sentence within the advisory Guidelines range before inviting him to speak. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by inviting Defendant to speak with respect to where within the Guidelines range the court should sentence him. This error, however, did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, and the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence. View "United States v. Mendoza-Lopez" on Justia Law

The tenant moved into an apartment in 2004. The building later came under management by defendants. In 2008 tenant filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962, alleging that defendants conspired to harbor illegal aliens and to encourage or induce illegal aliens to reside in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). He claimed that the apartment complex fell into disrepair and that criminal activity went unreported, causing injury to his leasehold property. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. The "harboring" claim was properly dismissed; the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the conduct tended to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting the unlawful presence. With respect to the "inducing" claim, the court stated that it could not imagine that Congress contemplated that landlords and hotel and motel operators would be responsible for making complex legal determinations about who is permitted to live in this country, much less that they would be criminalized for an error in so doing.View "Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Props., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. At issue was whether the notice requirements of Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 239(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1), were satisfied by service of a Notice to Appear that indicated that the date and time of a hearing would be set in the future, followed by service of a separate notice specifying the precise date and time of the hearing. Also at issue was whether the stop-time rule of INA 240A(d)(1) was triggered by proper notice under section 239(a)(1) even if the notice requirements of section 239(a)(2) were not satisfied. The court held that service of Notice of Appear followed by service of a separate notice indicating the precise date and time of the hearing satisfied the notice requirements of section 239(a)(1). The court also held that, once a petitioner had been served with notice complying with INA 239(a)(1), the stop-time rule of section 240A(d)(1) was triggered, regardless of whether subsequent notices regarding changes in time or place of proceeding complied with section 239(a)(2). Because petitioner could not demonstrate that he was physically present in the United States for a continuous period of ten years immediately prior to his application for relief, he was ineligible for relief in the form of cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b)(1) and therefore, the petition was denied. View "Guamanrrigra v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ireland, sought review of an order of the BIA finding him ineligible for adjustment of status due to his inadmissibility under section 212(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(c)(ii), for falsely representing himself to be a United States citizen. The court concluded that petitioner did not meet his burden of demonstrating that he did not represent himself to be a United States citizen when he checked the "citizen or national" box on an 1-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Crocock v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law