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

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's final order of removal. As a preliminary matter, the court could not consider petitioner's affidavit and the response of his former counsel to petitioner's complaint because that evidence was not presented to the BIA. The court held that, through counsel, petitioner clearly waived his right to appeal at the conclusion of the proceedings before the IJ. Although petitioner contended that his waiver was involuntary based upon the ineffectiveness of counsel, petitioner failed to show that he met the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BIA's dismissal of the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "Hernandez-Ortez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged a new method the Attorney General and the Board used to determine that he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for the purposes of admissibility under section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1100 et seq. The court agreed with four of its sister circuits and concluded that the "convicted of" clause of section 212(a)(2)(A)(i) was not ambiguous. The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that "convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude" was ambiguous and concluded that Congress had spoken directly to the issue. Consequently, the court found no analogous permission to abandon the categorical approach and look beyond the conviction record. In this instance, the court found that the BIA looked beyond the conviction record to conclude that petitioner had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Because the court's precedent did not permit such an inquiry, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Silva-Trevino v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of an order of removal by ICE, contending that the original order of deportation must be rescinded as unconstitutional. Alternatively, petitioner argued that the order could not be reinstated because he legally reentered the United States. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear petitioner's due process claim. Alternatively, petitioner's challenge to the reinstatement order was without merit where he illegally crossed the border and then applied for a new immigration card with a different identity and number. Successfully deceiving immigration officials into providing one with a new immigration card did not constitute either permission to reenter from the Attorney General or legal reentry. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Martinez v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's conclusion that he was inadmissible because there was reason to believe that he was a drug trafficker. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for review and dismissed the petition where a prior conviction was not required for an alien to be removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(C), and where DHS has shown through reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence that petitioner was engaged in illicit trafficking. View "Cuevas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the denial of her application for an adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident. Because petitioner entered the United States on a K-1 visa, she was required to marry the person who petitioned for her visa or depart the country within 90 days. Petitioner did neither, but instead, remained in the United States and subjected herself to removal and the bar to adjustment for status found in 8 U.S.C. 1255(d). Sections 1255(a) and 1255(d) announced no special rules for Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(iii)(I), self-petitioners that created an exception to the section 1255(d) bar. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Le v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the DHS's Final Administrative Removal Order issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b). The court concluded that petitioner did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies, and even without the bar of exhaustion, there was still the impediment that no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who was removable by reason of having committed an aggravated felony. The court denied the petition because petitioner was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and, therefore, he was properly subjected to the expedited administrative removal process. View "Valdiviez-Hernandez v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Mexico, petitioned for review of DHS's reinstatement of a previously-issued order of removal against petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he acquired citizenship from his U.S. citizen father at birth. The court concluded that petitioner met the requirements of INA 301 and 309 and acquired U.S. citizenship from his father at birth. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Iracheta v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nepalese citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal and the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he was subjected to past persecution and feared future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a particular social group, the Nepal Student Union. The court remanded the case because the IJ's finding, as affirmed by the BIA, that petitioner failed to prove the necessary nexus that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion, was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Sharma v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his appeal from the IJ's denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia deportation proceedings, rescind the in absentia order, stay deportation, and change venue. Petitioner argued that he never received the notice of deportation hearing; the notice of hearing (NOH) was statutorily deficient under 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(3)(A) because it was written only in English and not also in Spanish; and due process required that a NOH be in a language the alien could understand. The court concluded that petitioner's unsupported denial of receipt of the certified mail notice was insufficient to rebut the presumption of effective service; the fact that the NOH was only printed in English did not prejudice petitioner; and the NOH comported with due process. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to unlawful reentry and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court because neither defendant's identity nor his INS file were suppressible, although the court concluded that the agents lacked reasonable suspicion and clearly violated the Fourth Amendment in stopping defendant. Accordingly, the court was bound by precedent and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to suppress. View "United States v. Hernandez-Mandujano" on Justia Law