These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries in
New Case Law
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Iowa conviction for willful injury is a violent felony because it requires the serious injury, which includes disabling mental illness. The court also determined that Illinois armed robbery statute requires a mens rea greater than recklessness.
The full text of US v. Bragg can be found here:
The Eighth Circuit has determined that Iowa’s definition of cocaine in 2013 is overbroad as compared to the federal definition because it included the cocaine analogue Ioflupane, which was excluded from the CSA in 2019. Practitioners will need to verify if the statutes at issue included or excluded the analogue in the time period relevant to their case.
The full text of United States v. Perez can be found here:
The Sixth Circuit has determined that a federal conviction for exporting stolen vehicles qualifies as a receipt of stolen property aggravated felony. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the federal mens rea of “willful blindness” was broader than required mens rea prescribed by the agency for receipt of stolen property.
The full text of Tantchev v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/22a0195p-06.pdf
The Third Circuit has determined that a Pennsylvania conviction for stalking is overbroad and indivisible when compared to the generic definition of a crime of stalking because it includes conduct intending to cause substantial emotional distress, as well as conduct intended to put the victim in fear of serious bodily harm or death.
The full text of Vurimindi v. Attorny General can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a case for the agency to reconsider the impact of a psychological report that diagnosed the petitioner with PTSD and indicated she was suffering from memory impairment. The court indicated the report was critical for the agency to consider in light of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The full text of Rivera-Medrano v. Garland can be found here:
The First Circuit has determined that the reinstatement bar prevents the agency from reopening a reinstated removal order.
The full text of Garcia Sarmiento v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Notice to Appear missing the time and place of the first removal hearing presents a mandatory claim-processing rule violation. If a timely objection is brought (namely, before pleadings are taken), an immigration judge may give the Department of Homeland Security the opportunity to cure the defect before dismissing proceedings. If the objection is not timely raised, it is forfeited. The respondent need not show any prejudice resulting from the claim-processing rule violation.
The BIA declined to define how the DHS would remedy the defect. “The precise contours of permissible remedies are not before us at this time. DHS may decide it is best to request dismissal without prejudice and file a new notice to appear.”
The full text of Matter of Fernandes can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has deferred to the agency’s definition of a crime of child abuse as including criminally negligent, noninjurious conduct. Thus, a Florida conviction for culpably negligent child neglect is a deportable offense.
The full text of Bastias v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202111416.pdf
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that the immigration consequences of a drug offense are established by comparing the state statute of conviction to the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the conviction, not those in effect at the time of a subsequent adverse immigration decision (such as a denial of naturalization).
The full text of Morfa Diaz v. Mayorkas can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202110763.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that a lawful permanent resident who seeks reopening of his proceedings more than 90 days after the issuance of a final order of removal based on post-conviction relief must show that he was diligent in seeking that relief, such that the 90-day motion to reopen deadline should be tolled.
The full text of Perez-Camacho v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/01/19-72063.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/12/02/19-72063.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that pretrial detention not credited toward a sentence is not “confinement, as a result of conviction” under § 1101(f)(7). In this case, the petitioner was sentenced to a term of 4 months of incarceration, with credit given for 183 days of pretrial confinement. The court determined that the excess days of pretrial confinement (i.e., those beyond the 4 month mark) are not confinement as a result of conviction.
The full text of Troncoso-Oviedo v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/05/21-70547.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Iowa conviction for interference with official acts inflicting bodily injury is a crime of violence because the word “inflict” implies active and intentional conduct.
The full text of US v. Kent can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel v. Garland forecloses any argument that a federal court has jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that a petitioner did not prove the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal.
The full text of Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-60492-CV0.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has remanded a case for the agency to determine whether a petitioner is entitled to a hearing before a new immigration judge due to the conduct of the presiding immigration judge, and whether the petitioner is required to show prejudice due the judge’s conduct.
The full text of Tinoco Acevedo v. Garland can be found here:
The Fourth Circuit has reaffirmed that death threats are a form of persecution, if even the threat doesn’t come to fruition.
“Today, we similarly refuse to discount a credible death threat, as the IJ and the BIA did here, because it ‘never came to fruition.’ To do so would not only defy our precedent but would also create an untenable standard for asylum seekers. We similarly reject the government’s argument that death threats alone, ‘unaccompanied by severe physical abuse or torture, do not constitute persecution.’ The seriousness of the threat Sorto-Guzman received is corroborated by the repeated harassment, violence, and death threats she repeatedly suffered at the hands of the same Mara 18 members.” “But even if these threats were not made because of Sorto-Guzman’s religion, they nonetheless bear on the seriousness of the initial threat, the one everyone agrees was made because of Sorto-Guzman’s attending a church and wearing a crucifix. Sorto-Guzman took the December 2015 threat so seriously that she stopped attending Catholic services or wearing her crucifix necklace. It makes good, common sense that any subsequent threats from the same persons, regardless of why they were made, would make Sorto-Guzman permanently afraid to express her religious beliefs.”
The full text of Sorto-Guzman v. Garland can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a federal conviction for unlawfully selling or otherwise disposing of a firearm or ammunition is not a deportable firearms offense. The BIA found the statute overbroad both because it involves offenses involving ammunition, and not firearms, and because disposing of a firearm does not require a transfer of money. The BIA further concluded that the statute is indivisible, and therefore, a conviction under the statute will never trigger firearms-related deportability.
The full text of Matter of Ortega-Quezada can be found here:
The Eleventh Circuit has held that a putative NTA (missing the date and time of an initial removal hearing) does not preclude an in absentia order if the hearing was rescheduled, and a notice of the rescheduled hearing was sent to the last known address. In this case, the petitioner did not receive that hearing notice because he moved without notifying the court. The court recognized that its interpretation created a circuit split with the Ninth Circuit.
The full text of Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202013576.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the agency lacks any sua sponte authority to reopen a reinstated removal order, even if a petitioner is alleging a gross miscarriage of justice.
The full text of Bravo-Bravo v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/18/20-71042.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/12/02/20-71042.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that it cannot review the agency’s termination of removal proceedings - even when the termination clears the way for the issuance of a reinstatement order - because a termination order is not a final order of removal.
The full text of Lopez Luvian v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/19/18-73286.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has rejected a petitioner’s argument that “youth, language barrier, ignorance of the legal requirement to file [the asylum] application within a year, and stress from fleeing [the applicant’s] home country, constitute a ‘form of incapacity or legal disability.’”
The full text of Martinez Alquijay v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/27/20-70470.pdf
