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 Fourth Circuit has determined that a Virginia conviction for common law robbery does not qualify as a violent felony because it does not include an element of the use of violent force. Instead, it can be committed by threatening to accuse the robbery victim of committing sodomy.
The full text of US v. Williams can be found here:
The Second Circuit has determined that the agency’s now-defunct holding in Matter of Castro Tum, which held that Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals lacked the general authority to administratively close proceedings, was a reasonable interpretation of the regulations, and the subsequent reversal of that interpretation in Matter of Cruz Valdez does not render it unreasonable.
The full text of Garcia v. Garland can be found here:
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, has determined that a defense attorney who “probably likely” advised a client that if he reduced his felony to a misdemeanor, he could avoid mandatory deportation, provided sufficiently inaccurate advice to damage the client’s ability to meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.
The full text of People v. Villalba can be found here:
http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0323//B318353
Shoutout to Doug Jalaie for a great decision!
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has determined that there is no jurisdiction to review the denial of an adjustment of status application under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The full text of Abuzeid v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that the controlling circuit law in Immigration Court proceedings for choice of law purposes is the law governing the geographic location of the Immigration Court where venue lies, namely where jurisdiction vests and proceedings commence upon the filing of a charging document, and will only change if an Immigration Judge subsequently grants a change of venue to another Immigration Court.
The full text of Matter of Garcia can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that the Board of Immigration Appeals must apply de novo review to the question of whether persecution will be inflicted on account of a protected ground.
Shoutout to Sabrina Damast (yes, I just gave myself a shoutout in the third person) and Jose Medrano for getting this published decision!
The full text of Umana-Escobar v. Garland can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/17/19-70964.pdf
Amended opinion can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/05/23/19-70964.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Order to Show Cause lacking the date and time of the first deportation hearing is sufficient to trigger the stop-time rule for suspension of deportation.
The full text of Gutterrez-Alm v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/03/15/17-71012.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary denial of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent residents, and that the factors in Matter of C-V-T- do not provide a legal standard sufficient for federal court review.
The full text of Ayala Chapa v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60039-CV0.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has remanded to determine if the minimum culpable conduct under a Texas hit and run conviction qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude.
The full text of Zamaro-Silvero v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60324-CV0.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-60324-CV1.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Texas conviction for aggravated felony qualifies as either a theft aggravated felony, an attempted theft aggravated, or a crime of violence aggravated felony.
The full text of Rodriguez Gonzalez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-60091-CV0.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that non-citizens subject to the 3- and 10-year bars in section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA are not required to serve the entire bar outside of the country. “A plain-text reading of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), indicates that the period of ineligibility runs from the date of departure from the United States and does not require a noncitizen to remain outside the United States for the entire 10-year period of inadmissibility.”
The full text of Matter of Duarte-Gonzalez can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that an Ohio statute criminalizing assault on a police officer qualifies as a crime of violence. The court noted that knowledge is a sufficient mens reas for a crime of violence. The court also found that force sufficient to cause physical harm — even of minimal gravity or duration — is sufficient to qualify as a crime of violence.
The full text of United States v. Alvarez can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/02/16/21-50088.pdf
The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the agency’s requirement that a non-citizen file a cross appeal to preserve a challenge to any adverse findings. In this case, the Immigration Judge terminated proceedings due to the existence of a putative Notice to Appear, but also found the petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The DHS appealed the termination, but the petitioner did not file a cross appeal of the denial of withholding and CAT protection. The Board found those challenges to be waived by failing to file the cross appeal.
The full text of Lopez Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/02/16/20-71956.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that a Missouri statute for unlawful discharge of a weapon is divisible, and the prong criminalizing shooting at other persons from a motor vehicle is a violent felony.
The full text of United States v. Harris can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that district courts have no jurisdiction to review denials of adjustment of status applications, precluding any judicial review of arriving alien adjustments, U visa adjustments, and T visa adjustments.
The full text of Britkovyy v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Form I-122 initiating exclusion proceedings is not required to include the time and date of the first exclusion hearing pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Niz Chavez. In addition, an applicant in exclusion proceedings is not eligible to apply for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents.
The full text of Matter of J-L-L- can be found here:
The Sixth Circuit has determined that whether a non-citizen lacks good moral character is a mixed question of fact and law that the a federal appellate court has jurisdiction to review, though it reserved the question of what standard of review applies.
The full text of Hernandez v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0019p-06.pdf
The Fourth Circuit has determined that Virginia, as a matter of comity, would recognize a Ghanian divorce issue to two Ghanian citizens even though neither citizen was domiciled in Ghana at the time the divorce was issued.
The full text of Adjei v. Mayorkas can be found here:
The First Circuit has remanded a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture, finding that harm inflicted was severe enough to constitute torture. “The assailants not only beat Hernandez-Martinez senseless; they also sliced his waist with a knife and intentionally burned the flesh on his foot as they repeated their threats, sending him unconscious to a hospital where he remained for three to four days.”
The full text of Hernandez-Martinez v. Garland can be found here:
The California Supreme Court has published guidance on how to establish prejudice for a motion to vacate under section 1473.7 of the California Penal Code.
The Court started by evaluating whether Espinoza Espinoza lacked a meaningful understanding of the consequences of his plea, and looked to the fact that he traveled abroad as evidence that he did. “[H]e took an international commercial flight to the United States, which predictably required subjecting himself to the scrutiny of United States immigration officials, which is not consistent with the behavior of a person who understood that his convictions effectively ended his lawful resident status.”
Turning to prejudice, the Court noted that a totality of the circumstances analysis must be applied. “Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible. Also relevant are the defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea, as well as the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial. These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief. A defendant must provide ‘objective evidence’ to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.”
The Court acknowledged that ties to the United States are probative evidence of a defendant’s immigration priorities. Long-standing residency and strong family ties demonstrate that the prospect of deportation may be an integral (or even the most important) part of the calculus when accepting a plea. “Community ties may be established by length of residence; immigration status; lack of connection to the country of origin; connections to family, friends, or the community; work history or financial ties; or other forms of attachment. Objective evidence of a defendant’s community ties includes facts provided by a defendant’s declaration or declarations from family members, friends, colleagues, community members, or other acquaintances.”
“After Espinoza accepted the plea and served jail time, he returned home to care for his family and community. He became the caregiver for his elderly parents who suffer from severe medical conditions. He ran his own business to provide for his family. He volunteered, went to church, and took part in numerous community organizations. These facts lend credence to Espinoza’s assertion that his community ties were important to him at the time of his plea.”
“Another consideration is whether alternative, immigration-safe dispositions were available at the time of the defendant’s plea. Factors relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s criminal record, the strength of the prosecution’s case, the seriousness of the charges or whether the crimes involved sophistication, the district attorney’s charging policies with respect to immigration consequences, and the existence of comparable offenses without immigration consequences.”
“Espinoza had no prior criminal history at the time of his plea. This fact is relevant because a defendant without an extensive criminal record may persuasively contend that the prosecutor might have been willing to offer an alternative plea without immigration consequences. Additionally, Espinoza presented evidence from an immigration attorney that there were alternatives the prosecution could have offered that would not have resulted in mandatory deportation.” “Espinoza’s lack of a criminal record, combined with the declaration of the immigration attorney, support his assertion that he had reason to expect or hope for a plea bargain without immigration consequences.”
The Court made several other valuable observations. First, a defendant is not required to have expressed contemporaneous confusion about immigration consequences at the time of the plea. Second, a defendant is not required to obtain a statement from defense counsel.
The full text of People v. Espinoza can be found here:
