Third Circuit Finds that Non-Citizen Knowingly and Intelligently Waived Appeal

The Third Circuit has rejected a claim that a non-citizen was coerced into waiving his appellate rights because the judge advised him that he would likely remained detained for another year while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. “[T]t would require much more than an Immigration Judge’s predictive assessment of the timeline for an administrative appeal to compel the conclusion that Mendoza’s waiver was coerced – particularly since such an informative assessment could have augmented his knowledge and intelligence in deciding whether to waive the right.”

The full text of Mendoza v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/212322p.pdf

Ninth Circuit Finds that Petitioner's Departure from the US did not Constitute a Valid Waiver of his Right to Appeal

The Ninth Circuit has determined that a petitioner's departure from the United States prior to filing an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), on its own, does not constitute a valid waiver of his right to appeal.  "[E]ven though the departure-waiver regulation expressly states that an alien’s departure constitutes a waiver of his right to appeal to the BIA, an IJ must inform an alien who requests immediate removal that his departure would constitute a waiver of his right to appeal."  

The full text of Chavez-Garcia v. Sessions can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/09/21/14-72172.pdf

Ninth Circuit Addresses Validity of an Appeal Waiver

In what can only be described as a truly fantastic decision, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review, finding that the petitioner did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligent waive his right to appeal when the Immigration Judge incorrectly advised him that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and was ineligible for any form of immigration relief.  The court noted that under current caselaw AND caselaw in existence at the time of the Immigration Judge's decision, a conviction for grand theft in California was not categorically a theft offense because it included theft of labor and theft by false pretenses, both of which fell outside the generic definition of a theft offense. 

The full text of Garcia v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/05/20/11-73406.pdf