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

Petitioner, a native of Mexico and a lawful permanent resident, sought review of the BIA's order finding her inadmissible for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude and thus ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court denied relief because DHS may rely on subsequent convictions to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard in proving that a returning alien is applying for admission. View "Munoz v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was denied special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 203(a)(1), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196, because the BIA considered his 1992 Virginia conviction for "carnal knowledge of a child between thirteen and fifteen years of age" an aggravated felony as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A). The court concluded that petitioner's conviction under the Virginia statute necessarily means that he also has been convicted of the generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated felony within the INA. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Contreras v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to using a fraudulent visa as proof of permission to enter the United States. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a two level enhancement for previous deportation under U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). The court affirmed the sentence, rejecting defendant's contention that because he voluntarily departed he had not "been deported" for the purposes of U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(1). View "United States v. Murillo-Acosta" on Justia Law

Petitioners, a married couple who are natives and citizens of India, appealed the BIA's decision denying their petition for adjustment of status, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure. The court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that Dilshad was statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under INA 245(i) because she was inadmissible under INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for fraudulent entry; Naseem's derivative application thus was also properly denied; and the court denied the petition for review. The court lacked jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting or denying of discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal or voluntary departure where this appeal involved neither constitutional questions nor questions of law. Accordingly, the court dismissed the remainder of the petition for want of jurisdiction. View "Sattani, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review from the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from a removal order. At issue was whether petitioner's conviction for aiding or abetting improper entry under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) rendered him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(E)(i). The court concluded that the BIA's finding that the conviction documents associated with petitioner's section 1325(a) conviction established his removability under section 1227(a)(1)(E) was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied the petition for review. View "Santos-Sanchez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Three children who are natives of Mexico appealed the district court's finding under the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, that they were being wrongfully retained in the United States and should be returned to their mother. While the appeal was pending, USCIS granted the children asylum. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that the children, who are not parties, have standing to appeal where their well-being was at stake. On the merits, the court concluded that no jurisdictional defect arose from the fact that the director of child and family services was not the actual physical custodian of the children; the absence of ORR as a party was not a meaningful defect; and the Hague Convention was a proper mechanism for the recovery of the children. Accordingly, the district court did not lack jurisdiction to enter the order that the children be returned to their mother. Because the children's fundamental interests are at stake in the district court proceedings and no respondent is making an effort to represent those interests, the court remanded to the district court to appoint the children a guardian ad litem. The district court did not clearly err by failing to account for the mostly retrospective harm allegedly suffered by the children, or the conclusions of the psychologist, which were based on the children's belief that the same conditions would be present upon their return. Finally, the court concluded that an asylum grant did not remove from the district court authority to make controlling findings on the potential harm to the child. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Sanchez v. R.G.L." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought cancellation of removal but the IJ found that he was not statutorily eligible for the discretionary relief because of the "stop-time rule" in 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1). The court concluded that the plain reading of the provision supported the IJ's application of the stop-time rule where petitioner's conviction of aggravated assault of a family member triggered the rule and denied him eligibility for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, the court denied his petition for review. View "Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's determination that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he committed an aggravated felony. In 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to delivering cocaine in violation of Florida Statute 893.13(1)(a)(1). Defendant's conviction under the Florida statue did not require that he knew that the substance at issue was a controlled substance whereas a conviction under the federal statute did. Therefore, the state offense was not analogous to the federal offense. Accordingly, the court held that the Florida offense was not categorically an aggravated felony and granted the petition for review, vacating the order and remanding for further proceedings. View "Sarmientos v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's order of removal. Petitioner was granted asylum and was subsequently ordered removed on account of his criminal convictions. Because the court held that the plain language of Section 209(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1159(b), did not require an alien to maintain asylum status to be eligible for an adjustment of status, the court granted the petition for review on that issue and vacated the order of removal. The court did not review petitioner's request for relief under the Convention Against Torture because the court was bound by its precedent holding that the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252, divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction to do so. View "Siwe v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, detainees, filed Bivens claims against defendant, a border officer, for violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and plaintiffs appealed. The court concluded that plaintiffs were detained as excluded aliens for varying amounts of time and neither of the claims involved physical abuse. Therefore, the claims fell within the confines of entry fiction, and the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable; the detention did not violate constitutional rights; and the district court properly dismissed these claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Even if plaintiffs were in fact U.S. citizens, dismissal was proper because defendant enjoyed qualified immunity where plaintiffs pointed to no authority clearly establishing that defendant's actions in detaining, even for as long as ten hours, individuals who presented facially valid documentation, plus the use of unspecified threats and insults during interrogation, violated the Constitution. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro, et al. v. Cabrera" on Justia Law