Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Edgard Ernesto Aguilar-Quintanilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was removed from the United States in 2009 and unlawfully reentered in 2022. After being apprehended, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice of reinstatement of his prior removal order. However, due to the inadvertent disclosure of his personal information, DHS dismissed the withholding-only proceedings and placed him in removal proceedings. Aguilar-Quintanilla admitted to being removable and applied for asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he would be tortured by the Salvadoran government as a suspected gang member due to his tattoos and criminal record.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, finding Aguilar-Quintanilla's testimony not credible and determining that general country conditions evidence alone did not entitle him to CAT protection. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the IJ's decision, and Aguilar-Quintanilla filed a petition for review, challenging only the denial of deferral of removal under the CAT.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Aguilar-Quintanilla's removal did not moot his appeal because ICE could facilitate his return to the United States if his petition were granted. The court held that the BIA and IJ failed to consider critical evidence, including affidavits describing a 2023 incident where police searched for Aguilar-Quintanilla at his father's home, in their likelihood-of-torture assessment. The court granted Aguilar-Quintanilla's petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Aguilar-Quintanilla v. McHenry" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program by several states, led by Texas. DACA, established in 2012, allows certain undocumented immigrants who arrived as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for work authorization. The plaintiffs argue that DACA is procedurally and substantively unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially ruled in 2021 that Texas had standing to challenge DACA and that the program was unlawful. The court vacated the program but stayed the vacatur for existing DACA recipients. In 2022, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and remanded the case, noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had issued a Final Rule to address procedural defects. On remand, the district court found the Final Rule substantively unlawful and vacated it, maintaining the stay for existing recipients.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Texas has standing to challenge DACA based on the financial burden imposed by the presence of DACA recipients. The court also found that the Final Rule is substantively unlawful as it conflicts with the INA. The court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified the remedial order to limit the injunction to Texas and to sever the forbearance provisions from the work authorization provisions of the Final Rule. The court also maintained the stay for existing DACA recipients pending further appeal. View "Texas v. United States" on Justia Law

Lorenzo Vazquez-Alba, a Mexican citizen, lawfully entered the United States in 1986 and became a legal permanent resident in 1987. In 2008, he was arrested in Dallas, Texas, for using a juvenile as a paid prostitute and supplying her with drugs. He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and was sentenced to five years of probation. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 and was sentenced to eight years in prison for both the 2008 and 2011 offenses. He lost his permanent resident status and was deported to Mexico in 2017. He later unlawfully reentered the U.S. and was arrested in 2022 for driving a stolen vehicle and failing to register as a sex offender.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas indicted Vazquez-Alba for illegal reentry and failure to register as a sex offender. He pleaded guilty to both counts. The presentence investigation report (PSR) calculated an advisory guideline range of 30 to 37 months’ imprisonment. Vazquez-Alba objected to the PSR’s grouping determination and the indictment’s failure to allege a prior aggravated felony. The district court overruled his objections and sentenced him to 45 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Vazquez-Alba argued that his 2011 conviction was not an aggravated felony and that his counts should be grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. The court held that his 2011 conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The court also found that the district court correctly declined to group the counts and properly treated his state-court sentences separately. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "USA v. Vazquez-Alba" on Justia Law

Vicente David Cuenca-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, was brought to the United States as a child without being admitted or paroled. He has a minor son, B.A., who is a U.S. citizen and primarily resides with his mother but spends weekends with Cuenca-Arroyo. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Cuenca-Arroyo, charging him as inadmissible. Cuenca-Arroyo conceded the charge and was found removable by an immigration judge. He applied for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure but was denied both. He also sought a continuance to include his parents as qualifying relatives for his cancellation application, which was also denied.Cuenca-Arroyo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the immigration judge's decisions. The BIA agreed that there was no good cause for a continuance, that the hardships to Cuenca-Arroyo's son were not "exceptional and extremely unusual," and that Cuenca-Arroyo did not merit voluntary departure based on the equities.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the BIA's determination that Cuenca-Arroyo did not demonstrate the required hardship for cancellation of removal, noting that the hardships presented were common consequences of removal. The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision regarding voluntary departure. Lastly, the court found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the denial of Cuenca-Arroyo's motion for a continuance.The Fifth Circuit denied Cuenca-Arroyo's petition for review regarding the cancellation of removal and dismissed the petition regarding the voluntary departure decision. The court also upheld the BIA's decision on the continuance denial. View "Cuenca-Arroyo v. Garland" on Justia Law

Dagoberto Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1997 without valid entry documents. In 2003, the Government mailed Luna a Notice to Appear (NTA) for a removal hearing, which did not specify the date and time. Subsequently, a notice of hearing (NOH) was sent to the same address, informing Luna of a hearing scheduled for November 13, 2003. Luna did not attend the hearing, and an immigration judge ordered his removal in absentia. In 2018, Luna moved to rescind the removal order, claiming he did not receive the NTA or NOH and argued the NTA was defective under Pereira v. Sessions.The immigration judge denied Luna’s motion, finding that he had not rebutted the presumption of delivery and that the notice provided in the NOH was sufficient. The judge also declined to reopen the proceedings sua sponte. Luna appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed his appeal, holding that Luna had not rebutted the presumption of receipt, his motion to reopen was untimely, and he had not demonstrated exceptional hardship to his relatives.Luna petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review. Initially, the court granted his petition based on the defective NTA. However, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Campos-Chaves v. Garland, the Fifth Circuit reconsidered. The court held that the defective NTA did not deprive the immigration judge of jurisdiction and that the NOH provided sufficient notice. The court also found that Luna had not rebutted the presumption of delivery of the NOH and lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings sua sponte.The Fifth Circuit dismissed Luna’s petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied it in part, concluding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. The petition for rehearing was granted. View "Luna v. Garland" on Justia Law

Andre Louis Keller drove to a permanent immigration checkpoint where a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) canine alerted to his vehicle. Upon searching, agents found an alien unlawfully present in the United States concealed under luggage. Keller conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a hearing on Keller’s motion to suppress. Testimonies were provided by CBP Agent Jesse Sandoval, Matthew B. Devaney from CBP’s Canine Academy, and Andre Falco Jimenez, a private police dog trainer. The district court denied Keller’s motion, leading to his conditional guilty plea. Keller was sentenced to 20 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. He then appealed the suppression ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that stopping a vehicle for brief questioning at a permanent immigration checkpoint is not a Fourth Amendment search and does not require probable cause. The court found that the canine’s alert provided probable cause to search Keller’s vehicle. The court also concluded that the canine’s actions did not constitute an unlawful search and that the district court did not err in its ruling. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Keller’s motion to suppress. View "United States v. Keller" on Justia Law

The State of Texas placed a concertina wire fence along part of the border with Mexico in the Eagle Pass area to deter illegal crossings. The United States Border Patrol agents cut the wire multiple times, claiming it was necessary to fulfill their duty of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry. Texas sued for an injunction, arguing that the Border Patrol was needlessly cutting the wire. The district court found that the Border Patrol was not hampered by the wire and had breached it numerous times without apparent purpose other than to allow migrants easier entrance. However, the court denied the injunction, citing the United States' sovereign immunity against Texas's claims.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, despite agreeing with Texas on the facts. The court believed that the United States retained sovereign immunity. A motions panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and granted a temporary injunction pending appeal. The United States sought relief in the Supreme Court, which vacated the injunction without providing reasons. The case was remanded to the district court to investigate events in Shelby Park, where Texas's actions were alleged to have obstructed Border Patrol operations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas is entitled to a preliminary injunction. The court held that the United States waived sovereign immunity as to Texas's state law claims under § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also rejected the United States' arguments that the injunction was barred by intergovernmental immunity and the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court found that Texas satisfied the injunction factors from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and granted Texas's request for a preliminary injunction, with modifications based on the district court's supplemental fact findings. View "Texas v. Department of Homeland Security" on Justia Law

In October 2022, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez Velasquez was found unlawfully present in the United States for the fifth time. Previously, in 2019, he had signed a written stipulation waiving his rights and agreeing to his removal, which led to his deportation. Upon his reentry in 2022, he was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Hernandez Velasquez moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his waiver of rights in the 2019 removal was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary, making the removal order fundamentally unfair.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied his motion to dismiss, placing the burden on Hernandez Velasquez to prove the invalidity of his waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. The court found that he did not meet this burden and also failed to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of § 1326(d)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that when the government produces a written and signed stipulation and waiver, the burden rests on the defendant to prove its invalidity. The court found that the district court's burden allocation was proper and that Hernandez Velasquez's waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court also noted that even if the burden had been on the government, the outcome would not have changed, as the evidence overwhelmingly supported the validity of the waiver. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez Velasquez" on Justia Law

Luis Alberto Sustaita-Cordova, a Mexican national, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. Sustaita-Cordova argued that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his U.S. citizen child, Judith, who has significant hearing loss. He also contended that he had good moral character and that the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for administrative closure or a continuance, ignoring his request for a remand to pursue a waiver of inadmissibility, and failing to terminate his removal proceedings due to a deficient Notice to Appear (NTA).The IJ found that Sustaita-Cordova did not meet the requirements for cancellation of removal, specifically failing to demonstrate good moral character and exceptional hardship to his child. The IJ noted his past criminal charge and failure to file taxes as negative factors. The BIA upheld the IJ’s findings and denied administrative closure, citing Sustaita-Cordova’s delay in pursuing a U visa and lack of diligence. The BIA also rejected his argument regarding the deficient NTA, stating that the omission of time and place did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Sustaita-Cordova’s claims regarding administrative closure and a waiver of inadmissibility were moot due to the denial of his U visa application and his removal to Mexico. The court upheld the BIA’s decision on the cancellation of removal, agreeing that Sustaita-Cordova did not demonstrate the required exceptional hardship to his child. The court also affirmed that the deficient NTA did not affect the jurisdiction of the immigration court, following precedent that such deficiencies are claim-processing errors that must be timely raised.The Fifth Circuit denied Sustaita-Cordova’s petition for review. View "Sustaita-Cordova v. Garland" on Justia Law

Alex Francois, a Haitian national, left Haiti in 1979 to reunite with his U.S. citizen father. He has lived in New York City, raised six U.S. citizen children, and suffers from severe mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Francois has been hospitalized multiple times for his mental health and has had several encounters with law enforcement, often related to his mental illness. In 2017, he was arrested for trespassing in Texas, found incompetent to stand trial, and subsequently transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially granted Francois withholding of removal, finding that he would likely be persecuted in Haiti due to his mental illness. The IJ based this decision on expert testimony and country conditions evidence, which highlighted the dire conditions and violent treatment of mentally ill individuals in Haitian prisons. The government appealed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) remanded the case for further factfinding, questioning whether Francois would be singled out for persecution and whether there was a pattern of persecution against similarly situated individuals.The IJ, on remand, reversed the initial decision, denying Francois's claims for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found that Francois had not proven he would be targeted for persecution in Haiti based on his mental illness. The BIA affirmed this decision, finding no clear error in the IJ's findings. Francois then filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit held that the BIA deprived Francois of due process by violating its own regulations, specifically by remanding for further factfinding instead of reviewing the IJ's initial findings for clear error. The court granted Francois's petitions for review, vacated the BIA's orders, and remanded the case for the BIA to review the IJ's initial order under the proper standards of review. View "Francois v. Garland" on Justia Law