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

James Devins, a pro se plaintiff, sought to sponsor a Nepali citizen, Rita Raut, for a U.S. student visa as part of his religious practice, which he described as involving “parental and patriotic guidance” and “spiritual and intellectual mentorship.” Raut’s visa applications were denied three times between 2021 and 2023. After the last denial, Devins filed three separate lawsuits relating to the visa refusal, each time alleging a violation of his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed Devins’s first suit against the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for lack of standing, without prejudice. In his second suit against the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, the district court also dismissed the case without prejudice, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on standing and the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. In his third and current action, Devins again sued the Assistant Secretary, raising substantially the same claim based on the same events and added no new factual allegations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision to dismiss the third action with prejudice based on the doctrine of res judicata. The Fifth Circuit held that all requirements for res judicata were met: the parties were identical or in privity, the prior judgments were final and on the merits as to jurisdiction, and the same claim was involved in all actions. The court concluded that further litigation was precluded, as Devins had not alleged any new injury or change in circumstances that would alter the prior jurisdictional rulings. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. View "Devins v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

A lawful permanent resident from Mexico entered the United States in 2016 and, in 2024, pleaded guilty to eight criminal offenses in New Mexico, including child abuse and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The child abuse conviction was based on an incident in which he punched a child in the lip. The aggregate sentence for all convictions was approximately 21.5 years. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that his child abuse conviction qualified as a removable offense under federal law, and that the aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony.An Immigration Judge denied the petitioner’s motion to terminate the proceedings, sustaining both charges of removability. The petitioner’s counsel declined to seek any further relief from removal, reserving only the right to appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals considered the case next, focusing on whether the New Mexico child abuse statute fit the federal definition of a removable “crime of child abuse.” Applying the categorical approach, the Board concluded that the statute matched the federal standard and dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, not addressing the aggravated assault conviction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision. The court held that the petitioner failed to show a realistic probability that New Mexico would apply its child abuse statute in a way broader than the federal definition. The court also determined that the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal, regardless of whether his aggravated assault conviction constituted an aggravated felony, because he had multiple convictions with aggregate sentences exceeding five years within seven years of his admission as a permanent resident. Finding no basis for remand or relief, the Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. View "Santiago v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Ahmadou entered the United States from Niger in 2016 under an F1 student visa. In 2021, he visited a Texas gun range, rented and fired guns, and completed a waiver form that did not list his visa status as a prohibited category for firearm possession under federal law. Investigators connected Ahmadou to an Islamic extremist involved in a 2020 attack, and a search of Ahmadou’s devices revealed extensive ISIS propaganda. Undercover agents were present during his visits, but did not instruct the gun range staff to act differently. Ahmadou was later arrested and admitted his gun range visits were in preparation for potential jihad overseas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Ahmadou moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing he was entitled to the defense of entrapment by estoppel based on alleged misrepresentation by the gun range’s waiver form. The district judge denied his motion, excluded evidence of the defense, and refused his proposed jury instruction. After trial, a jury found Ahmadou guilty on all counts. At sentencing, the court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and declined to apply the terrorism enhancement, but imposed an above-guidelines sentence, citing Ahmadou’s conduct and associations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions. It held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because the gun range’s waiver form was not an affirmative misrepresentation, and the firearms dealer was not a federal official or agent for purposes of the defense. The Fifth Circuit also found that denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was not clearly erroneous, and the above-guidelines sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, as it was based on permissible considerations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). View "USA v. Ahmadou" on Justia Law

A Jamaican citizen, admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1) for influencing a federal official by threat and sentenced to 41 months in prison. Following this conviction, the government initiated removal proceedings, alleging that the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under immigration law, making him both removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The individual contested these assertions, claiming his conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony.An immigration judge determined that the conviction was indeed for an aggravated felony, thus rendering the individual removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision, applying the categorical approach without distinguishing which statutory alternative formed the basis for the conviction. The petitioner then sought review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the petitioner’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1) constituted an aggravated felony, specifically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). The court found the statute divisible and determined from the record that the conviction was for threatening to assault a federal official. The court concluded that this offense necessarily involved the threatened use of physical force, meeting the definition of a crime of violence, and thus an aggravated felony. The court also found that any error by the BIA in method was harmless. As a result, the Fifth Circuit denied both the motion for appointment of counsel and the petition for review, affirming the final order of removal and ineligibility for cancellation of removal. View "McLean v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, the petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2022, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The judgment included a forfeiture order stating that at least $3,934,518 was obtained and laundered by the petitioner as a result of his participation in the conspiracy. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that the petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon because his offense involved more than $10,000.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner removable as charged, relying on the conviction records, including the forfeiture order. The petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge concluded he was ineligible due to the aggravated felony conviction. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioner argued that the forfeiture order did not meet the evidentiary standard required to establish that his conviction was an aggravated felony, as it did not specify the amount directly attributable to his conduct. The Board, applying the circumstance-specific approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder, found that the forfeiture order was sufficient to establish that the funds involved exceeded $10,000 and dismissed the appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision de novo. The court held that an unrebutted forfeiture order entered solely against an alien, finding a specific amount of laundered funds attributable to the alien’s conduct of conviction, can constitute clear and convincing evidence that the amount of funds required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) is met. The court denied the petition for review. View "Reyes v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Marilu Calderon-Uresti, a native of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 2011 after previously being returned to Mexico by immigration authorities. She sought permanent residency through Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, but her application was denied when she reached adulthood. In 2018, she was arrested for a misdemeanor DWI, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement served her with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Shortly after, she married a U.S. citizen and applied for cancellation of removal under two schemes: the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) “special rule cancellation” for battered spouses, and “regular rule cancellation.” She testified to an immigration judge (IJ) that her husband had physically and emotionally abused her, but she did not provide corroborating evidence such as police reports or hospital records.The Immigration Judge found Calderon-Uresti’s testimony credible but determined she was ineligible for VAWA special rule cancellation because she failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence of battery or extreme cruelty. The IJ also found her ineligible for regular rule cancellation due to not meeting the ten-year residency requirement. The IJ ordered her removal but granted voluntary departure. Calderon-Uresti appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing her credible testimony should suffice and that corroborating evidence was not reasonably available. The BIA dismissed her appeal, agreeing she had not met her burden for special rule cancellation and did not address her hardship claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court held that the BIA’s finding—that Calderon-Uresti failed to meet the statutory eligibility for VAWA special rule cancellation due to lack of corroborating evidence—was supported by substantial evidence. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to consider her regular rule cancellation arguments because she had not exhausted them administratively before the BIA. The petition for review was denied. View "Calderon-Uresti v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Guatemalan national was convicted of possession of a controlled substance in Illinois and, in 2004, was found removable from the United States based on that conviction. He was removed to Guatemala that year but later reentered the country illegally. In 2021, Illinois enacted a law allowing individuals to seek vacatur of convictions that could have immigration consequences. The petitioner sought and obtained vacatur of his possession conviction in December 2023, citing procedural and substantive deficiencies in the original proceedings.After the state court vacated his conviction, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals in January 2024, arguing that the vacatur eliminated the sole ground for his removability. The Board denied the motion, finding it untimely and concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling because he had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing his rights. The Board also denied his motion for reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decisions under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The court held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen, as the petitioner failed to show that he acted with reasonable diligence either after the Illinois law was enacted or after learning of his ability to seek vacatur. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion for reconsideration, as the petitioner’s arguments were essentially the same as those previously rejected. The Fifth Circuit therefore denied both petitions for review. View "Rosa Arevalo v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A Mexican citizen, whose legal permanent resident status in the United States had been revoked, was previously removed from the country multiple times following a criminal conviction. In August 2023, he entered the United States from Mexico by bus, intentionally seeking arrest in order to challenge his prior deportation and potentially regain legal status. Upon arrival at the port of entry in El Paso, he bypassed a pedestrian turnstile, was quickly apprehended by Customs and Border Protection officers, and admitted his intent to be arrested. He was indicted for illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas conducted a jury trial. The defendant did not dispute the factual basis of his entry but argued that he was not “free from official restraint” and therefore had not “entered” the United States in the legal sense. He requested a jury instruction defining “official restraint,” which the district court denied, reasoning that the concept was not an additional element of the offense and that the pattern jury instructions sufficed. The jury found him guilty of illegal re-entry, and the court entered judgment for attempted illegal re-entry, sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment and supervised release.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the district court erred in refusing the requested instruction. The Fifth Circuit held that while “freedom from official restraint” is part of the definition of entry for § 1326(a), the pattern jury instruction given was a correct statement of law and adequately covered the issues. The court found that the defendant was able to present his defense theory to the jury, and thus, the absence of the requested instruction did not constitute reversible error. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction but remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment. View "United States v. Hernandez-Adame" on Justia Law

Celia Ignacia Esquivel-Bataz, a Mexican citizen, was previously convicted of making a false statement to obtain credit and deported in 2012. In April 2025, she was found by ICE agents at an illegal gambling parlor in Houston. She was indicted for illegal reentry after deportation following a felony conviction, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). ICE lodged an immigration detainer against her, indicating that she would be taken into custody and removed to Mexico if released.A magistrate judge initially found that Esquivel-Bataz was not a flight risk and ordered her release on bond pending trial. The Government responded with an emergency motion to stay and revoke the release order, which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted. Esquivel-Bataz then moved for pretrial release, and the district court held an evidentiary hearing. After hearing testimony, including from an ICE officer about the detainer’s effect, the district court denied her motion, finding her to be a flight risk based on her criminal history, Mexican citizenship, prior deportation, and current unlawful presence.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s order under an abuse-of-discretion standard. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying pretrial release. The Fifth Circuit clarified that the district court did not treat the immigration detainer or potential deportation as flight risk per se, but rather considered the totality of circumstances, including individualized factors required by the Bail Reform Act. The order denying pretrial release was affirmed. View "United States v. Esquivel-Bataz" on Justia Law

A citizen of Mexico, who had been a lawful permanent resident in the United States since 1982, was convicted twice for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—first in 2011 for shooting his ex-wife and again in 2018 for assaulting a roommate with a knife. These felony convictions led the Department of Homeland Security to initiate removal proceedings against him under Section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which concerns firearm offenses. An immigration judge ordered his removal after he completed his sentences, finding him ineligible for relief due to his convictions.The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the removal order in 2020. The individual’s first petition for review to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was dismissed as untimely. In 2022, he filed his first motion to reopen or reconsider with the BIA, arguing that a Supreme Court decision, Borden v. United States, changed the legal landscape regarding his removability. The BIA denied this motion, finding Borden inapplicable because his removal was based on a firearm offense, not an aggravated felony, and that the motion was untimely. In 2024, he filed a second motion to reopen, again citing Borden and seeking equitable tolling of both the time and numerical limits on motions to reopen. The BIA denied this second motion, holding that the statutory limit of one motion to reopen applied and that equitable tolling did not extend to the numerical bar.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial. The court held that the statutory “number bar” in the INA, which generally allows only one motion to reopen, is not subject to equitable tolling. The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, concluding that the BIA did not err in refusing to reopen the removal proceedings. View "Garcia Morin v. Bondi" on Justia Law