Immigration News And Cases
Case Summaries
[09/07]
Hamdi v. Napolitano
In a severely disabled minor child's action under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from removing his mother on the ground that the mother's removal violated his own constitutional rights as an American citizen, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. section 1252(g) does not apply to independent actions brought by a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights; 2) the APA does not provide subject matter jurisdiction in this case; 3) a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights may assert federal question subject matter jurisdiction; and 4) dismissal was proper because petitioner failed to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted.
[09/07]
Mozden v. Holder
A Polish family's petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's finding the petitioners removable is denied where: 1) petitioners failed to establish lawful presence; 2) BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance; and 3) the BIA properly affirmed the IJ's finding that the mother did not qualify for consideration of cancellation of removal.
[09/03]
US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.
[09/03]
Luna v. Holder
Petitions for review of final orders of removal are transferred to the district court for further proceedings where: 1) although the petitions are untimely, the REAL ID Act did not divest district courts of habeas jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claims that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from filing timely petitions for review; and 2) thus, the circuit court need not decide whether the statutory 30-day filing requirement violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases in which an alien misses the deadline because of ineffective assistance of counsel or circumstances created by the government.
[09/02]
US v. Millis
Defendant's conviction under 50 C.F.R. section 27.94(a) for placing full, gallon-sized plastic bottles of water on trails in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to help alleviate exposure deaths among undocumented immigrants crossing into the U.S. is reversed where the term "garbage" within the context of the regulation was sufficiently ambiguous that the rule of lenity would apply in this case.
[09/02]
Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.
[09/02]
Camacho-Cruz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal because of petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada state law, the petition is dismissed where petitioner’s conviction was categorically a crime of violence.
[09/02]
Galindo-Romero v. Holder
In a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing petitioner's appeal of an Immigration Judge's (IJ) decision terminating his formal removal proceedings, the petition is dismissed where the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits of petitioner's petition for review because the decisions of the BIA and IJ resulted in no final order of removal.
[09/01]
Mwasaru v. Napolitano
A Kenyan citizen's appeal of a district court's order dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order compelling U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to transfer her file to an immigration judge to commence removal proceedings, review by the IJ of the denial of adjustment status, and the issuance of a diversity visa should the IJ approve her application, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as section 1154 rendered petitioner ineligible for a DV-2007 visa as of midnight on September 30, 2007, and therefore, she is likewise ineligible for adjustment of status under section 1255 because no visa is immediately available.
[09/01]
US v. Melchor-Meceno
Defendant's sentence for illegally reentering the U.S. is affirmed where, because defendant's prior Colorado felony menacing conviction was categorically a crime of violence (as outlined in U.S.S.G. section 2L1.2), the district court properly applied the enhancement to defendant's sentence.
[09/01]
Garcia v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioners' motion to reopen their removal proceedings, the petition is granted in part where the BIA erred by failing to exercise its discretion to consider or decline to consider petitioners' supplemental brief and the attached exhibit relating to a new medical condition allegedly incurred by mother. However, the petition is denied in part where the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioners' daughter's new medical condition did not warrant reopening.
[09/01]
Lin v. Holder
A Chinese couple's petition for review of a BIA's affirmance of an IJ's decision that petitioners were not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal and are eligible to be deported is denied as petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating past persecution or a well founded fear of future persecution that if they return to China they will be persecuted on account of their opposition to and failure to comply with family planning policies.
[08/31]
Kone v. Holder
Malian citizens' petition for review of BIA's denial of their application for asylum and related relief is granted, and the BIA's decision vacated and remanded as the BIA effectively only addressed half of petitioner's argument in concluding that petitioner could not assert a derivative claim based on potential hardship to her daughter, but failed to address her assertion that female genital mutilation of the daughter would also constitute direct persecution of her parents.
[08/30]
Kurzberg v. Ashcroft
In an action by five Israeli nationals who were illegally present in the United States on September 11, 2001, concerning certain alleged particulars of their arrest on that day and their confinement thereafter at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, dismissal of the action for failure to serve process is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) because they did not effect service on the U.S.; and 2) plaintiffs were afforded a reasonable time to cure their failure to serve, as is required by Rule 4(i).
[08/30]
Ghouri v. Holder
A Pakistani citizen's petition for review of a BIA's decision affirming an IJ's denial of his application for asylum and related relief is denied in part and dismissed in part where: 1) petitioner's claim that he fears his brother-in-law will murder him and his wife in an honor killing because his wife converted from Sunni to Shia Islam when she married him, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the claim of asylum is untimely; and 2) substantial evidence supports the determination that petitioner failed to show eligibility for withholding of removal and CAT protection.
