Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of her motion to reopen. Petitioner contended that her prior deportation proceedings were void ab initio because exclusion proceedings at the port of entry were the only appropriate procedure for determining whether she could enter into and remain in the United States. The court concluded, however, that petitioner conceded to the charge of deportability at her hearing before the IJ and did not attempt to terminate the proceedings until filing her motion to reopen over nine years after the deportation order became effective. The court rejected petitioner's remaining arguments, finding them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Li v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Kurdish ethnic and citizen of Turkey, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ concluded that on at least four or five occasions, petitioner gave food and, on at least one occasion, clothing, to individuals whom petitioner knew, or had reason to know, to be members of Kurdish terrorist groups. The BIA adopted the IJ's findings and legal conclusions. The court found no error in the agency's factual conclusion that petitioner provided material support to a terrorist organization. However, the court remanded in order to allow the BIA to address a precedential issue: whether the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI), should be construed to include a duress exception to the admissibility bar that the Act otherwise established for those who have provided material support to a terrorist organization. Accordingly, the court granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ay v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Vietnam, sought review of an order of the BIA dismissing her appeal from a decision of the IJ, which ordered her removed and denied her petition to remove conditions placed upon her residency in the United States. The USCIS denied the petition after finding that petitioner was her husband's half-niece, concluding that the marriage was incestuous and therefore void. The court affirmed the IJ's factual determination that petitioner and her husband were related as half-blooded niece and uncle. The court certified to the New York Court of Appeals the issue of whether such relationships were void for incest under New York's Domestic Relations Law, N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 5(2). View "Nguyen v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being voluntarily present and found in the United States, arguing that he was not in the United States when he was found. The court concluded that, although defendant had indisputably been present in the United States illegally for nearly a decade, defendant was not "found" while has in the country. When he was found - admittedly not long after his departure from the United States - defendant had neither a physical nor a legal presence in the country. When defendant had been "found" at the Canadian border, he had been returned involuntarily with neither a desire to enter, nor a will to be present in, the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that defendant was not "found in" the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1326. View "United States v. Vasquez Macias" on Justia Law

Petitioners sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Both petitioners premised their applications on pro-democracy activities in which they engaged after arriving in the United States, including the publication of articles criticizing the Chinese government. The court concluded that, although petitioners asserted that they revealed their participation in pro-democracy organizations on the Internet, neither adduced sufficient evidence that Chinese authorities were aware or likely to become aware of their political activities in the United States or that they would in any event be persecuted on that basis. Accordingly, the court denied Y.C.'s petition for review, and denied in part and dismissed in part X.W.'s petition for review. View "Y.C. v. Holder, X.W. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, sought review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision and rejecting his claim to automatic derivative citizenship under former 8 U.S.C. 1432(a). The BIA found petitioner removable on the basis of his prior criminal conviction for sale of a controlled substance and criminal possession of a weapon, as well as other criminal convictions. The court rejected petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of section 1432(a)(3) and concluded that petitioner's argument based on the constitutional avoidance canon was barred by the plain language of the statute; the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection Clause claim based on purported legitimacy discrimination; and the court rejected, on the merits, petitioner's Equal Protection claim based on gender discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Pierre v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Indonesia, sought review of the BIA's denial of her motion to reopen proceedings in her immigration case. Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) claiming persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The BIA rejected petitioner's evidentiary submissions because she had not submitted a sworn statement in support of her motion and because her expert witness had not provided copies of the sources on which he relied. The court concluded that the BIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in attaching consequences to these previously unarticulated requirements in petitioner's case and, therefore, granted the petition for review. View "Indradjaja v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision denying cancellation of removal and the BIA's decision not to reopen his case. The IJ concluded that petitioner had not met his burden of proving the ten years of continuous presence required for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the IJ's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence and the BIA's decision not to reopen proceedings was expressly premised on the same erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the court remanded Case No. 11-1833 for further proceedings. Because the court could not review the BIA's exercise of discretion denying cancellation of removal, the court dismissed Case No. 10-4100. View "Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, his wife, and son, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's denial of their application for adjustment of status and order of removal to Ecuador. Petitioner claimed that the BIA erred in finding him ineligible for adjustment of status based on an earlier 1997 order of removal because that order was entered in violation of due process. The court dismissed the petitions for review, concluding that section 242(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(A), deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear these petitions. View "Shunaula v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a conviction of illegally reentering the United States following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2). The court concluded that defendant's statute of limitations defense failed where he was not "found in" the United States in 2002, as he argued, but was instead "found" here in 2010. The court also concluded that defendant's ineffective assistance claim failed where the IJ relied upon multiple grounds for denying defendant relief and the court did not think clearly erroneous the district court's finding that evidence of defendant's cooperation was before the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law