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

Defendant appealed his conviction for illegal reentry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1326. At issue was whether the record evidence was sufficient to justify the trial judge's conclusion that defendant was an alien at the time of his reentry. The court found that there was substantial evidence showing that defendant was an alien when he reentered the United States. The court also found that the nunc pro tunc divorce decree obtained in 2010 purporting to retroactively rearrange defendant's custody status in 1994 did not raise a reasonable doubt as to this alienage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Esparza" on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's summary judgment enjoining it from implementing a purported housing ordinance that required all adults living in rental housing within the City to obtain an occupancy license conditioned upon the occupant's citizenship or lawful immigration status. The court concluded that the ordinance's sole purpose was not to regulate housing but to exclude undocumented aliens, specifically Latinos, from the City and that it was an impermissible regulation of immigration. The court held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and presented an obstacle to federal authority on immigration and the conduct of foreign affairs. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Villas at Parkside Partners, et al. v. City of Farmers Branch, Texas" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to lying about his U.S. citizenship on a Firearms Transaction Record form which he completed while attempting to purchase a handgun. Defendant also pled guilty to illegal re-entry to the United States after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony. Defendant appealed the district court's decision on his ineffective counsel claim where defendant claimed counsel failed to independently research and investigate the derivative citizenship defense. The court concluded that defendant's guilty pleas were not entered knowingly or voluntarily because counsel advised him without investigating derivative citizenship. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens, conspiracy to conceal or harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring or concealing illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), (v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(I). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, upholding the district court's admission of expert testimony by federal law enforcement agents regarding usual locations of passengers in the vehicles used to transport illegal aliens; use of multiple bailouts in illegal alien trafficking; the role of guides; and relationships among drivers, guides, and recruiters. An agent's statement identifying a particular phone number as belonging to unindicted co-conspirator was hearsay, but not prejudicial.

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, was removed from the U.S. in 1989, following convictions for grand theft auto, second degree burglary, amd receiving stolen property. About one month later, he illegally reentered. In 1990, he was convicted in Missouri of rape and armed criminal action and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. The Border Patrol was not notified of his 2008 release, and no removal order issued. In 2009 he was taken into custody and pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2). The presentence report recommended enhancing his offense level by 16 levels based on his 1990 conviction. The district court found that, after serving his sentence, defendant unlawfully remained in the U.S., applied the 16-level enhancement and calculated a guidelines imprisonment range of 77 to 96 months, then sentenced him to 90 months. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that a defendant alleged to have unlawfully remained in the U.S. following a qualifying conviction under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) is subject to the 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) enhancement only when a removal order is issued or reinstated after that conviction.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, appealed the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. 2241 habeas petition challenging the removal order resulting in his deportation to Mexico. Petitioner argued that he was "in custody" within the meaning of section 2241 because he was being restrained from returning to the United States despite his wrongful removal. Because petitioner had failed to show that his deportation was the result of extreme circumstances or that he was subject to any restraints in Mexico not experienced by other non-citizens who lacked the documentation to enter the United States, he had not shown that he was "in custody" within the meaning of section 2241. Further, the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the final removal order pursuant to the provisions of the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing the petition.

Petitioner petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he be removed based on having committed an aggravated felony. Petitioner was charged and convicted of felonious sexual intercourse without consent. Petitioner did not "necessarily" commit the aggravated felony of rape, rather than a lesser crime. Because the court was not convinced that petitioner pled guilty to a crime that can be categorized as rape under 18 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A), the court granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA's decision, remanding to the BIA.

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, appealed both the BIA's dismissal of his initial appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen his deportation proceedings because of ineffective assistance of counsel and its denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court affirmed the denial of petitioner's first motion to reopen his deportation proceedings because he failed to comply with Matter of Lozada. The court held, however, that the BIA abused its discretion by denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration where the BIA imposed a due diligence requirement that was not part of Lozada's three-part test. Moreover, in doing so, the BIA directly contravened its own precedent and its earlier conclusion in this proceeding relying on that precedent in support of its conclusion that his motion was in fact timely filed. Accordingly, the court reversed the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion for reconsideration and remanded for further proceedings.

Petitioner, a citizen of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of his petition for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he feared persecution if he returned to China because his family practiced Falun Gong. The court held that the BIA need not make a credibility determination when it determined that corroborating evidence was reasonably available to petitioner but was not submitted. The court also held that it could not conclude that petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies and the court did not have jurisdiction to consider his argument. Because petitioner failed to seek voluntary departure before the IJ, petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Because the court denied petitioner's petition for review with respect to his application for asylum, it followed that the court also denied his petition for review with respect to his application for withholding of removal.

Plaintiff sued the Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners, claiming its status requirement violated the Constitution when the Board denied her a license solely on account of her immigration status. Plaintiff was an alien who had applied for permanent residence. The district court granted the Board summary judgment on all grounds. The court held that because applicants for permanent resident status did not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, and a rational basis supported the immigration-status requirement, the judgment was affirmed.