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

Nancy and Saed Marouf, and their daughter were stateless Christian Palestinians, living in the West Bank. Saed arrived in the U.S. in 2008. Nancy and Naheda arrived in 2009. The Maroufs now have two children who were born in the U.S. Nancy sought asylum and withholding of removal, naming Saed and Naheda as derivative beneficiaries. Saed and Naheda applied separately. The Maroufs were placed in removal proceedings and charged with being unlawfully present in the U.S. They claimed that they were persecuted as a result of their Christian religion and testified about numerous instances, including Saed being attacked after he had escorted a group of Christian women who were being harassed by Muslim men; an attempted rape of Nancy; and a fire-bombing of Nancy’s parents’ house. The IJ denied relief, concluding that their testimony was not credible and failed to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution (asylum) or that it was more likely than not that they would be harmed (withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture) if removed. The BIA affirmed. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that the credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and noting that discretionary denials of asylum to otherwise-eligible applicants are rare and appropriate only in narrow circumstances. View "Marouf v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In 2003, Sanchez-Robles, a citizen of Mexico, and her four children, all born in Mexico, illegally entered the U.S.. Her husband, who does not have legal status in the U.S., has traveled back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. multiple times. In 2010, Sanchez-Robles was convicted of theft of property under $500 and was sentenced to three days in jail. Her counsel conceded her removability based on the conviction. Sanchez-Robles applied for withholding of removal, arguing that she had a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her status as a “Mexican returnee” who spent significant time in, and has familial ties to the U.S. Sanchez-Robles testified that in 2002 she received phone calls claiming that her husband had been kidnapped and that her mother received calls from individuals claiming to have kidnapped Sanchez-Robles and her sibling. Neither Sanchez-Robles nor her mother paid; no one was harmed. Sanchez-Robles also presented evidence that her hometown has a problem with organized crime. The Immigration Judge determined that Sanchez-Robles was not eligible for withholding of removal and had not established a “clear probability” of persecution based on membership in a protected group. The BIA and Sixth Circuit affirmed. There is no particular social group consisting of nationals who return to their home country with the perception that they are wealthy. View "Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Cruz-Gomez was admitted to the United States in 2006 on a temporary work visa. He remained in the U.S. after his visa expired, and DHS initiated removal proceedings. Cruz-Gomez appeared with counsel, conceded that he was removable as charged, and claimed that he would seek asylum and withholding of removal. The IJ notified Cruz-Gomez and his counsel that he would schedule two further hearings—a master calendar hearing on March 12, 2013, and an individual hearing on August 8, 2013. Neither Cruz-Gomez nor his counsel appeared at the March 12 hearing. The hearing was conducted in absentia and Cruz-Gomez was ordered to be removed to Mexico. On July 16, Cruz-Gomez, represented by new counsel, moved to reopen his proceedings, arguing that he received notice only of the August 8 hearing. On August 22, the IJ denied the motion, finding that Cruz-Gomez’s claim that he did not know about the March 12 hearing was “not correct” because Cruz-Gomez was “specifically told” about both hearing dates through a Spanish interpreter; that Cruz-Gomez’s counsel was provided with written notices of the two hearings. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed an appeal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Cruz-Gomez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Yousif, a citizen of Iraq and a Chaldean Christian, entered the U.S. and applied for asylum and withholding of removal in 2007. The immigration judge adjudicated the claims four years later. By that time, the attorney general conceded that conditions in Iraq for Chaldean Christians were so turbulent that there was a clear probability that Yousif would be persecuted based on his religion if he was returned to Iraq. The IJ agreed and granted Yousif withholding of removal. However, the IJ denied Yousif asylum, ruling that Yousif had filed a “frivolous” asylum application, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6), by deliberately fabricating one of its “material elements,” by falsely claiming that he had experienced past incidents of persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Sixth Circuit vacated, observing that generally the burden of proof is more onerous in obtaining withholding of removal than asylum. The IJ did not determine whether, at the time that Yousif submitted his application, contemporary conditions in Iraq were so dangerous for Chaldean Christians that Yousif would have been eligible for asylum based solely upon his religion, and, therefore, failed to determine whether Yousif’s misrepresentations were material to his application when they were made. View "Yousif v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, arrived illegally in the U.S. in 1988. He has four times been convicted of driving under the influence, most recently in 2010. In 1995, he pled guilty to property theft. The maximum punishment was one year in prison, but the Arkansas court imposed a suspended sentence of 30 days. He remained eligible, under then-existing immigration laws, to petition for suspension of deportation. The 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, combined to make ineligible for cancellation of removal any alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude punishable by a year or more in prison, regardless of the punishment actually imposed. In 2010, Ice agents detained petitioner. He sought cancellation of removal, arguing that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his mother—a legal permanent resident—and his daughter—a U.S. citizen. The IJ expressly rejected petitioner’s argument that his eligibility for cancellation of removal should be determined by the law that was in effect at the time petitioner received his sentence. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(C) prohibits cancellation of removal for aliens convicted of “offenses under” 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2); petitioner was convicted of such an offense . View "Velasco-Tijero v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Thompson, a native of Jamaica, was arrested by Cleveland police in 1999 because he was present at a house during a controlled drug delivery. He was placed under an immigration detainer. He received personal service, which he signed, listing his address on E. 126 Street and informing him about his responsibility to inform immigration authorities about any address changes and the consequences for failure to appear. A hearing notice was mailed to the E. 126 Street address. It was not returned by the Postal Service. Following a hearing at which Thompson failed to appear, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed. A copy of the removal order was mailed to the E. 126 Street address and was not returned. More than 14 years later, Thompson moved to rescind his removal order, claiming that the INS officer who interviewed him in jail told him that the house was a “drug house,” and that he should move to a different house, so that it was error for the INS officer to list the E. 126 Street address on the Notice to Appear. The IJ denied the motion. The BIA affirmed, noting that Thompson failed to “fulfill his obligation to report his address change.” The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. View "Thompson v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Gaye is an ethnic Wolof, born in Mauritania. He and his parents were members of the UFD political party, which advocated for the rights of blacks and participated in anti-government demonstrations. Gaye claims that in 1993, white Moor soldiers arrested the family; that they were taken to a camp, where soldiers severely beat Gaye and forced him into hard labor; and that, weeks later, the family was forced to cross into Senegal. The soldiers threatened to kill them if they returned. Gaye spent years in a Red Cross refugee camp, where he met Ba, who provided a plane ticket and a false Senegalese passport, showing Gaye’s picture but the name of another. Gaye claims to have arrived in the U.S. in October 2000. Gaye applied for asylum in February, 2001. Gaye was charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. 237(a)(1)(A). Gaye appeared with counsel and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An IJ denied relief, finding that Gaye did not establish that he filed his application within one year of arriving; that there is no record of an alien arriving as he described, and that Gaye’s witness was not credible. The Sixth Circuit dismissed clams that he was entitled to notice regarding the sort of evidence he needed, that his counsel was ineffective, and that his due-process rights were violated. View "Gaye v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. in 1992, and, in 1993, married Cruz, a U.S. citizen. Defendant and Cruz have two children, but are divorced. Defendant has been removed three times. He pled guilty to domestic violence on three different occasions. Under Michigan law, his third offense was a felony. His 2001 application to adjust his status on the basis of his marriage was denied. Before his last removal in 2007, Defendant was informed that he was barred from entering the U.S. for 20 years. In 2013, Grand Rapids immigration authorities learned of Defendant’s unlawful presence from a tip line. Defendant was taken into custody and charged under 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(1). He pled guilty. The district court applied a four-level enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for a prior felony conviction; determined that an upward variance was warranted; and imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, citing Defendant’s record of domestic violence and illegal reentries. Defense counsel stated that Defendant had no legal objections to the sentence. Defendant appealed, but due to delays resulting from his attorney’s withdrawal, he completed his term of imprisonment and was removed to Mexico in September, 2014. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Solano-Rosales" on Justia Law

Gonzalez entered the U.S. without inspection in 1997. He returned to Mexico in 2001, to marry, and brought his wife to the U.S. Their daughters, ages five, nine, and 13, were born in this country and have citizenship. The children are close with extended family, living nearby, and have never been to Mexico. The eldest excels in school and wants to be a doctor. Gonzalez’s parents and some members of his wife’s extended family remain in Mexico. Gonzalez was placed in removal proceedings in 2009 and applied for cancellation under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b). He presented evidence about rampant gang violence and limited educational opportunities in his hometown, and concerns about providing for his children should he be removed. He submitted a late exhibit which purported to show that his middle daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning causing injury to her legs. The IJ denied Gonzalez’s application, finding that he had failed to establish sufficient continuous residency to be eligible for relief and had not established that his removal would create the requisite hardship for his citizen children. The BIA affirmed. He was removed to Mexico in October 2014. The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review. The BIA followed its own precedent and Gonzalez cannot show constitutional injury. View "Montanez-Gonzalez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Pola, a Canadian citizen born in Iraq, was living in Louisville with his wife and children, all U.S. citizens, as a lawful permanent resident, when he was charged with intentionally possessing with the intent to distribute oxycodone, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Pola entered an Alford plea and was sentenced to 46 months’ incarceration. About two months after judgment was entered, Pola filed a notice of appeal pro se. The Sixth Circuit dismissed it as untimely, noting that he could move to vacate or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255, based upon his allegation that counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a notice of appeal upon his request. Pola did so. A magistrate ordered a ordered U.S. Marshals to transport Pola for an October 17, 2012 hearing, but Pola had been released on September 4, and transferred to ICE custody. On September 11, Pola, without counsel, declined a hearing and conceded removability. On September 19, ICE removed Pola. He could not attend the hearing. Pola and the government filed affidavits. The court denied Pola’s request for an evidentiary hearing and his motion, finding the attorney’s performance not deficient. The Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction, that the court should have granted an evidentiary hearing to develop the ineffective-assistance claim, and vacated. View "Pola v. United States" on Justia Law