Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Amezola-Garcia unsuccessfully attempted to enter the U.S. in 1996 by presenting the resident alien card of another. He agreed to return to Mexico in lieu of exclusion proceedings. In 1997, Amezola-Garcia successfully entered without being admitted or paroled. Since that entry, Amezola-Garcia has traveled to Mexico and reentered the U.S. without being admitted or paroled at least four different times. In 2011, DHS commenced removal proceedings (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)). He sought withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture, stating that he fears he will be harmed if he returns to Mexico, as a member of a “family which has been targeted by persons the government of Mexico cannot or will not control.” He cited the unsolved murder of his brother-in-law, a member of a “government organization of defense for Mexico” in 2009. The IJ concluded that Amezola-Garcia lacked good moral character because he “prevaricated intentionally” with regard to his application; that his testimony was often inconsistent; and that “he has made up his story out of absolutely nothing.” A single-member panel of the BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit found his appeal without merit, but remanded for reconsideration of voluntary removal. View "Amezola-Garcia v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Six years ago, illegal immigrant Canelas-Amador was charged in Tennessee state court with felony aggravated assault. Canelas-Amador signed a “Waiver of Trial by Jury and Acceptance of Plea of Guilty.” The court approved the agreement. Before the court could enter judgment or pronounce a sentence, immigration authorities took Canelas-Amador into custody, deporting him. When Canelas-Amador failed to appear for a presentence interview, the Tennessee court issued a bench warrant. Canelas-Amador reentered the U.S. illegally, pled guilty to illegal reentry in Texas, and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment. In 2015, he was arrested in Tennessee. He pled guilty to illegal reentry. The district court imposed a sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment, finding that the state court order constituted a “conviction for a felony that is . . . a crime of violence,” mandating a 16-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The Guideline does not define “conviction.” The court looked to 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A), which refers to a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and the judge has ordered some punishment, penalty, or restraint. The Sixth Circuit reversed. A plea agreement approved in a form order falls short of “a formal judgment of guilt.” View "United States v. Canelas-Amador" on Justia Law

Reyes entered the U.S. from Mexico, without inspection, in 1994; he became a lawful permanent resident in 1998. Reyes is married and has five children, all U.S. citizens. In 2015, Reyes was charged with removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for “hav[ing] been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude [CMT] not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.” The Notice listed three prior state (Ohio) criminal charges: in 2000, Reyes was convicted of soliciting; in 2003, Reyes was convicted in Hamilton for passing bad checks; in 2005, Reyes was convicted of resisting arrest The IJ found that Reyes’s prior charges for soliciting prostitution and passing bad checks were CIMTs and that solicitation of prostitution was a CIMT because it was “similar to other crimes the Board has previously found to be morally turpitudinous, including renting a room with knowledge that it will be used for prostitution, keeping a house for prostitution, and the act of prostitution.” The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit denied relief. Although our society’s (and the BIA’s) views regarding prostitution and solicitation of prostitution may continue to “transform,” the BIA’s precedential opinions on prostitution are entitled to Chevron deference and they are not unreasonable. View "JReyes v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1994, Govindbhai Patel, a citizen of India, sought asylum and employment authorization, stating that he arrived in New York as a visitor in 1993. His wife, Vidhyaben, also applied, asserting that she arrived as a visitor in 1994. Both denied traveling through another country before entering the U.S. An immigrant petition for an alien worker was approved for Govindbhai in 2004. He applied for adjustment of status, reiterating that he entered as a visitor. Vidhyaben and their children filed derivative applications, indicating that they entered without inspection. In 2005, Govindbhai stated under oath that he entered, through New York, with a visa . In subsequent interviews, Govindbhai stated under oath that he entered by crossing the border from Mexico with a smuggler and that his family members also used smugglers. In 2008, USCIS denied the applications. DHS initiated removal and charged Govindbhai with seeking to procure an immigration benefit by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. Seeking adjustment under 8 U.S.C. 1255, all four Patels testified that they were smuggled into the U.S.: two from Mexico, and two from Canada. The IJ ordered their removal. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Sixth Circuit rejected an appeal. Govindbhai bore the burden to prove that he satisfied the requirements for adjustment of status. His concession of removability was not sufficient to prove that he satisfies the 8 U.S.C. 1255 requirement of having entered the country without inspection. View "Patel v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Shuti, from Albania, entered the U.S. as a permanent resident in 2008 at age 13. In 2014, Shuti and some friends committed a “larceny of marijuana.” Shuti pleaded guilty to felony unarmed robbery, defined as “larceny of any money or other property” accomplished by “force or violence against any person” or “assault[ing] or put[ting] the person in fear.” Mich. Comp. Laws 750.530. Shuti was sentenced to more than two years in prison. DHS initiated removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2). A non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony after admission is ineligible for most discretionary relief; “aggravated felony” is defined as including “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18 ....) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F). The cross-referenced definition of “crime of violence” is: an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used. Shuti unsuccessfully applied for discretionary relief, claiming that his attorney “never discussed” the immigration consequences of his plea. The BIA affirmed, stating that unarmed robbery was “categorically a crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. 16(b). Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual definition of “violent felony,” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), void for vagueness. The BIA concluded that the void-for-vagueness doctrine did not apply to “civil” deportations. The Sixth Circuit vacated the order of removal, concluding that the wide-ranging inquiry required by the two statutory phrases was the same, so the immigration code’s residual clause is also unconstitutionally vague. View "Shuti v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 1999, Hosseini’s wife was granted asylum. Hosseini lawfully entered the U.S. as a derivative asylee in 2000. Hosseini sought to obtain permanent resident status, 8 U.S.C. 1159. No action was taken on Hosseini’s application for 12 years. In 2013, the district court ordered USCIS to adjudicate Hosseini’s application within 60 days. USCIS sent Hosseini a Notice of Intent to Deny his application based on it determination that he had engaged in terrorist activities as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(dd). Hosseini denied ties to terrorism, but acknowledged affiliation with a political organization called Fedaeian from 1979-1982 in Iran and that he had distributed literature for Fadayeen Khalq (FeK) and Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK) until 1985. USCIS denied his application, finding that Fek and MeK fell within the definition of undesignated terrorist organizations. Hosseini’s asylum status was not revoked; no removal proceedings were instituted. Hosseini challenged USCIS’s decision, stating that he could not be “inadmissible” because he was admitted as a derivative asylee. The court rejected the government’s jurisdictional arguments, but dismissed, holding that the denial was not a “final agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding that the denial was a final agency action, given that no removal action is pending. View "Hosseini v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Lee, now 47, moved to the U.S. from South Korea with his family in 1982 and has lived here legally ever since. After completing high school, he became a successful Memphis restaurateur. He also became a small-time drug dealer, and, in 2009, following a sting operation, he was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The case against him was very strong. Lee’s attorney advised him to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. Lee, unlike his parents, never became an American citizen. His lawyer incorrectly assured him that he would not be subject to deportation. Possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute is an “aggravated felony,” rendering Lee deportable, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Lee moved to vacate his conviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, contending that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Applying the Strickland v. Washington test, the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of relief. A claimant’s ties to the U.S. should be taken into account in evaluating, alongside the legal merits, whether counsel’s bad advice caused prejudice. Lee had no bona fide defense, not even a weak one, so despite his very strong ties to the U.S., he cannot show prejudice. View "Lee v. United States" on Justia Law

Wang entered the U.S. in 2006 as a nonimmigrant, authorized to remain until September. In November 2006, Wang appeared before an IJ, and after conceding removability, filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. DHS argued that Wang’s asylum application was strikingly similar to several others. The IJ nonetheless determined that Wang’s testimony was credible, and granted Wang asylum based upon his practice of Christianity, stating that the similarities might have arisen from the applications’ having been prepared by the same person. The BIA reasoned that the IJ’s credibility analysis was insufficient and failed to adequately address the similarities between Wang’s application and the others. On remand, a new IJ found that Wang’s story contained implausible elements, such as Wang’s statement that he was under police surveillance but still managed to obtain a visa, which requires an interview, and was able to board a plane and leave China. Most damaging to Wang’s credibility were “two asylum applications from completely unrelated cases that share a striking number of very specific details.” The BIA and Sixth Circuit upheld denial of Wang’s petition. An IJ may properly take such remarkably similar facts as evidence that an applicant is not telling the truth, at least where the applicant has had a chance to explain the similarities. View "Wang v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Bašić, a Balkan native, came to the U.S. in 1994 as a refugee to escape the civil war that was tearing Yugoslavia apart. She settled in Kentucky and became a naturalized citizen. She is now accused in Bosnia, one of Yugoslavia’s successor states, of crimes committed against ethnic Serbs during the war while Bašić was a member of the Croatian army. Bosnia asked the U.S. to extradite Bašić for trial. The Department of State filed a Complaint for Extradition in 2011. A Magistrate Judge certified the complaint, concluding that Bašić was extraditable under a 1902 treaty between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Serbia, 32 Stat. 1890. Direct appeal is not available in extradition proceedings, so Bašić filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial, rejecting arguments that the Treaty prohibits extradition of U.S. citizens to Bosnia and that the Bosnian government failed to produce a warrant for Bašić’s arrest as required by the Treaty. View "Bašic v. Steck" on Justia Law

Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb and native of Bosnia, came to the U.S. in 2000 as a refugee fleeing the civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Maslenjak claimed she and her family feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had evaded conscription into the Serbian army during the war. In fact, Maslenjak’s husband had not only been in the Serbian militia during the war but had served as an officer in a unit implicated in war crimes. Maslenjak was granted refugee status and ultimately obtained her naturalization. Based on her misrepresentations during the immigration process, she was later convicted of knowingly procuring her naturalization contrary to law, 18 U.S.C. 1425(a) and of knowingly using an unlawfully issued certificate of naturalization, 18 U.S.C. 1423. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court improperly instructed the jury that her false statements need not be material in order to convict Maslenjak of procuring her naturalization contrary to law or erroneously instructed the jury that it could also convict Maslenjak if the jury found that she lacked good moral character. View "United States v. Maslenjak" on Justia Law