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

Petitioner, a Ghanaian citizen, was charged with being removable because he was an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. That same year, petitioner applied for asylum. Petitioner subsequently petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal of the IJ's denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. Petitioner also petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of a motion to consider. The court addressed the second petition, holding that the departure regulation could not be applied to statutorily authorized motions to reconsider. The departure regulation therefore could not serve as a basis for denying aliens who have departed the United States their statutorily authorized right to file one motion to reconsider. Accordingly, the court granted the second petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. In light of the remand, the court denied the first petition for review and left unanswered the questions regarding whether petitioner was properly found to have been removable. View "Lari v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered in the United States in 1999. She had authorization to remain for a temporary period, not to exceed six months, but she remained beyond that period without authorization. In 2007 Petitioner was convicted of unlawful possession of fraudulent identifying information. The Department of Homeland Security then charged Petitioner with removability as an alien who remained in the United States for a time longer than permitted. Petitioner filed an application for cancellation of removal for nonpermanent residents, which an immigration judge denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for review, holding (1) Petitioner's ineligibility for cancellation of removal depended solely on whether her prior state-court conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude; and (2) Petitioner's offense was one of moral turpitude, and therefore, Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. View "Nino v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant illegally entered the United States in 2002. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings. Defendant applied for relief from removal based on his fear of harm in his native El Salvador. Defendant also sought review of DHS's denial of his application for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The immigration judge denied Defendant's applications and ordered him removed to El Salvador. The BIA affirmed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's motion for stay of deportation and granted the government's motion for summary denial of Defendant's petition for review, holding that the Attorney General was not required to withhold Defendant's removal, and that Defendant was ineligible to receive TPS. View "Castillo-Enriquez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of illegal re-entry. Defendant contended that the district court erred in considering his need for anger management courses in determining the length of his sentence. At issue in this case was whether, when the law at the time of trial or plea is unsettled, but becomes clear while the case is pending on appeal, review for the second prong of the plain error test properly considers the law as it stood during the district court proceedings or at the time of the appellate court's decision. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals joined the majority of other circuits in holding that where the law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled by the time of appeal, the plainness of the error should be judged by the law at the time of appeal. The Court then held that the district court's determination under the second prong of the plain error test was plain error, and the error affected Defendant's substantial rights. The Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. View "United States v. Escalante-Reyes" on Justia Law

The Criminal Justice Act (CJA) creates a system for the appointment and payment of counsel for defendants unable to afford representation. At issue here was subsection (c), which concerns the ability of district courts to appoint counsel in federal criminal prosecutions. Defendant, a Mexican national, pled guilty to illegal reentry. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion under subsection (c) for an additional court-appointed attorney to seek to have a prior state felony conviction set aside in an Iowa court. The prior Iowa conviction lengthened the advisory sentencing range for the illegal reentry offense. The district court determined the purpose would not be an appropriate use of CJA funds. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Defendant's challenge to a prior, unrelated conviction in a state court that could affect the sentence he received on a new federal conviction was not an "ancillary matter" under the statute, and therefore, it was inappropriate to appoint counsel for Defendant in this case. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

Kingsley Dayo petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to review the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on the government's violation of confidentiality in revealing to the Nigerian consulate that he had applied for asylum. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, holding (1) Dayo was allowed a separate claim for relief based on the breach of confidentiality; and (2) because the BIA considered this separate claim, and because its denial of relief on that ground was supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review was denied. View "Dayo v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to the charge of conspiring to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. He was not informed that his conviction made him eligible for deportation. Later, an immigration judge conducted a hearing and ordered Petitioner's removal. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), Petitioner claimed derivative citizenship under 321 of the former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The BIA denied Petitioner's appeal. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) because Petitioner's parents never legally separated, and because Petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that his mother was deceased, Petitioner failed to satisfy INA 321; and (2) INA 321 did not violate Petitioner's equal protection rights. View "Ayton v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of Defendant's attempt to illegally reenter the United States at the United States-Mexico border. A jury convicted Defendant of attempted illegal reentry and for making a false statement to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not unconstitutionally direct a verdict by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and by its response to the jury's note; (2) the district court did not constructively amend the indictment by commenting on the evidence while delivering the jury instructions and responding to the jury's note; and (3) the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "United States v. Jara-Favela" on Justia Law

Salvadoran citizens Jose Orellana-Monson and his brother Andres entered the United States in 2005. They were charged with being in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. The Orellana-Monsons claimed asylum because of Jose's political opinions - specifically, opposition to gangs - and because they would be persecuted on account of their membership in a particular social group. Initially, an immigration judge rejected this argument, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. The Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the BIA to explain the basis for its decision. On remand, the BIA dismissed the appeal, determining that Salvadoran young adults who were subjected to, and who rejected, recruitment efforts of gangs did not possess the social visibility and particularity to constitute "membership in a particular social group" for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that the Orellana-Monsons did not demonstrate that they were eligible for status under the "particular social group" prong of the INA's eligibility criteria for asylum. View "Orellana-Monson v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of structuring financial transactions to evade federal reporting requirements. DHS subsequently attempted to introduce defendant's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in a removal proceeding; the immigration court refused to admit the PSR without the district court's approval, which DHS then sought. Defendant in turn requested criminal contempt sanctions against the DHS attorneys who pursued disclosure of his PSR. The district court granted DHS's motion after redacting much of defendant's information and denied the sanctions request. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the United States v. Huckaby factors, for determining a "compelling, particularized need for disclosure," nor did it err in evaluating and balancing those factors. Further, that court did not abuse its discretion in declining to initiate contempt proceedings, as DHS's attorneys did not contumaciously violate a clear order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Iqbal" on Justia Law