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

Rony Alexander Paz Calix, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in December 1997 as a lawful permanent-resident alien. He was convicted in February 2001 for possession of marijuana and in July 2007 for possession of cocaine. Paz Calix sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ruling that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under the “stop-time rule.” The government argued that the Fifth Circuit could not consider his claim because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the claim. On the merits, the Court agreed with the BIA’s holding that Paz Calix was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Paz Calix v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Jose Mendoza was indicted on one count of unlawfully entering the United States after having previously been deported. He pleaded guilty to that count. After finding that Mendoza had previously been deported in 2008 following a federal conviction for conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, the sentencing judge applied an eight-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Mendoza was sentenced within the advisory guidelines range to a sentence of forty-one months. He challenged this eight-level enhancement on appeal; the specific issue raised was whether the district court committed plain error when it found that Mendoza’s prior money laundering conviction was an aggravated felony. The parties did not dispute that Mendoza was convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mendoza contended, however, that the district court relied on the presentence report in order to prove that his prior conviction was an aggravated felony, in violation of "Shepard v. United States," (544 U.S. 13 (2005)). The Fifth Circuit affirmed: the evidence a court may consider under a specific circumstances inquiry is broader than the evidence that may be considered under a modified-categorical analysis inquiry. The district court did not err in examining the PSR in order to determine that Mendoza committed an aggravated felony. View "United States v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants are several Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and deportation officers (collectively, "Agents") and the State of Mississippi. They filed this suit against the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the directors of departments within that agency (collectively, "DHS"), in their official capacities, challenging DHS's 2012 directive, which required its officials to use "deferred action" as to a certain class of aliens in immigration removal proceedings. The Agents alleged that exercising deferred action violated federal law, because the law required them to detain all illegal aliens for the purpose of placing the aliens in removal proceedings. The State of Mississippi alleged that the deferred action has caused additional aliens to remain in the state and, thus, causes the state to spend money on providing social services. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After review, the Fifth Circuit concluded that neither the Agents nor the State of Mississippi demonstrated the concrete and particularized injury required to give them standing to maintain this suit. Therefore the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Crane v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Elmer Gomez-Alvarez pled guilty to illegal reentry without a written plea agreement. His pre-sentence report ("PSR"), which relied on the 2013 version of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual, recommended a 16-level sentencing enhancement for a prior "drug trafficking offense" conviction. The PSR listed "Jorge Ortiz" as one of several aliases used by Gomez-Alvarez and indicated that Gomez-Alvarez had been convicted of the offense in California "using the name Jorge Ortiz." Attached to the PSR was a California felony complaint. Also attached to the PSR was an abstract of judgment indicating that Jorge Ortiz pled guilty to "possession for sale of [a] controlled substance" but did not specify the substance. Application of the sentencing enhancement based on the California offense resulted in a total offense level of 22 and a criminal history category of V, which produced a guideline range for imprisonment of 77 to 96 months. Gomez-Alvarez raised several written objections to the PSR. Relevant to this appeal, he objected to the 16-level enhancement on grounds that the documents relied upon by the government failed to establish the fact of a qualifying predicate conviction. He argued that the language of the California statue was overbroad, and that although "the charging instrument [the Complaint] allege[d] . . . possession and purchase of heroin," the Abstract did not specify a controlled substance. Finally, Gomez-Alvarez raised the following one-sentence written objection: "Further, it has not been established with credible documentation that the person purportedly convicted was, in fact, Mr. Gomez-Alvarez." Gomez-Alvarez then argued in favor of a below-guideline-range sentence on grounds that his criminal history was over-represented. The district court agreed and concluded that criminal history category IV more accurately represented Gomez-Alvarez's criminal history. As a result, Gomez-Alvarez's The district court sentenced Gomez-Alvarez to 57 months of imprisonment and did not impose a term of supervised release. Gomez-Alvarez timely appealed. After careful consideration, the Fifth Circuit concluded there was no clear error in the sentencing court's judgment, and that the lower court's findings were plausible in light of the record as a whole. As such, the Fifth Circuit affirmed Gomez-Alvarez's sentence. View "United States v. Gomez-Alvarez" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jose Manuel Rodriguez-Avalos appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision. Rodriguez was a citizen of Mexico who entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled. In January 2011, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) inspection revealed that Rodriguez was one of fourteen employees of an Omaha, Nebraska grocery store against whom identity-theft complaints had been filed with the Federal Trade Commission. A DHS agent interviewed Rodriguez, who admitted his identity to the DHS agent and admitted that he had no documentation allowing him to enter or work in the United States. Rodriguez was then placed under arrest for administrative immigration violations. Rodriguez was subsequently indicted and charged with, inter alia, falsely and willfully representing himself to be a United States citizen. The BIA dismissed his appeal after an Immigration Judge’s denied of his application for relief from removal. The BIA held that the prison sentence Rodriguez served following his conviction for falsely and willfully representing himself as a United States citizen barred him from demonstrating the “good moral character” necessary to be statutorily eligible for relief from removal. Finding no reversible error in the BIA's decision, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. View "Rodriguez-Avalos v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned pro se for review of the BIA's finding that his prior offense of public lewdness under Texas Penal Code 21.07 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude and that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). The court concluded that petitioner's offense under the statute is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because section 21.07 is divisible into discrete subsections of turpitudinous acts and non-turpitudinous acts. Therefore, the IJ and the BIA erred in declining to review petitioner's record of conviction under the modified approach to determine whether he was convicted under a subsection that describes a crime involving moral turpitude. The court granted the petition for review. View "Cisneros-Guerrerro v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 2013, Vigil pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to illegal re-entry into the United States. A pre-sentence calculated a base offense level of 8. The PSR then applied a 16-level enhancement, finding that a previous conviction for sexual battery under Louisiana Revised Statute § 14.43.1 constituted a "crime of violence" under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). After a 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, Vigil's total offense level was 22. Combined with a Criminal History Category of II, the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 46 to 57 months imprisonment. Vigil objected that the government had not presented competent evidence to support the 16-level enhancement and that even if properly supported, the Louisiana conviction was not a "crime of violence." The district court applied the 16-level enhancement required by the Guidelines when there has been a prior conviction for a crime of violence. After granting the Government's motion for an additional 1-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months imprisonment and sentenced Vigil to 41 months. The Fifth Circuit affirmed imposition of the enhancement. View "United States v. Vigil" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen proceedings and rescind an in absentia removal order. The court concluded that, despite the high review bar, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to reopen because insufficient notice of the removal proceedings entitled him to reopen proceedings at any time pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). The court rejected the government's argument that petitioner and his older brother's cases were consolidated, thus allowing the immigration court to address the letter to a single brother and still properly serve both of them with notice. The court also rejected the government's contention that notice addressed solely to the brother was proper since petitioner was under eighteen years old and his brother was an adult. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, born in Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's order of removal, contending that removal is improper because he derived citizenship from his father under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court declined to decide whether the Second Circuit or the BIA has the correct interpretation of section 1432(a)(5) because petitioner does not qualify for derivative citizenship under either interpretation. The court also rejected petitioner's claim that section 1432(a)(5) does not require an individual to be lawfully present in the country. Because petitioner is not entitled to derivative citizenship under section 1432, the court also denied his motion to stay and transfer his case. The court declined to decide whether the proper interpretation of section 1432 is that of the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits or the Second Circuit because petitioner's claim fails under either approach. View "Gonzalez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's revocation of his supervised release, arguing that his supervised release expired prior to the date the United States Probation Office petitioned the district court for revocation - thereby divesting the district court of jurisdiction over his supervised release. The court concluded that defendant's term of pretrial detention did not toll his supervised release where neither period of detention was in connection with a conviction and the immigration detainer imposed during defendant's Texas pretrial detention was an administrative hold that did not amount to imprisonment in connection with a conviction for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 3624(e). Therefore, the court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to revoke defendant's supervised release. The court vacated the revocation and the sentence imposed.View "United States v. Juarez-Velasquez" on Justia Law