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

Miguel Angel Garcia Carrera, a nonpermanent resident and citizen of Mexico, sought to cancel his removal from the United States. Garcia Carrera argued that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen daughter. The Department of Homeland Security had placed him in removal proceedings after he entered the U.S. without inspection. Garcia Carrera had been in the U.S. since 2005, with a brief return to Mexico in 2005. His removal proceedings began in 2012 following an arrest for driving while intoxicated.The Immigration Judge (IJ) initially denied Garcia Carrera's application for cancellation of removal, concluding that he had not demonstrated the requisite hardship to his daughter. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision, agreeing that Garcia Carrera failed to establish the necessary hardship as his daughter, who would remain in the U.S. with her mother, had no serious physical or mental disabilities. Garcia Carrera, proceeding without counsel, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.The Second Circuit, following the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, confirmed that it had jurisdiction to review Garcia Carrera's claim. The court considered both the IJ's and the BIA's decisions and found no error in the agency's conclusion that Garcia Carrera failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship. The court noted that the IJ correctly stated the applicable legal standards and addressed the hardships that Garcia Carrera claimed his daughter would suffer. The court also found no indication that the IJ failed to consider other relevant evidence. Therefore, the court denied Garcia Carrera's petition for review. View "Garcia Carrera v. Garland" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Aleksandra Malgorzata Stankiewicz, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who was convicted in 2003 for violating a New Jersey statute that criminalizes distributing a controlled substance on or near school property. In 2018, removal proceedings were initiated against her, with the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluding that her conviction was an aggravated felony, making her both removable and ineligible to apply for cancellation of removal.The BIA dismissed Stankiewicz's appeal, maintaining its reasoning that her conviction was an aggravated felony. Stankiewicz then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review of the BIA's decision.The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that Stankiewicz's conviction under the New Jersey statute is not an "aggravated felony" under federal law. The court applied the "categorical approach," comparing the state law to any federal controlled substance offense that is a felony subject to a prison sentence greater than one year. The court found that neither of the parties' proposed federal analogs categorically matches the New Jersey statute. The court therefore granted Stankiewicz's petition for review, vacated the agency’s ruling, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings. View "Stankiewicz v. Garland" on Justia Law

This case involves two legal permanent residents, Carol Williams Black and Keisy G.M., who were detained by the U.S. government for several months without a bond hearing under the authority of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), pending the conclusion of their separate removal proceedings. Black and G.M. each sought habeas relief, asserting that their prolonged detentions without any bond hearing violated their Fifth Amendment rights to due process. The district court granted Black's petition and he was released, while G.M.'s petition was denied.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court concluded that the constitutional guarantee of due process precludes a noncitizen’s unreasonably prolonged detention under section 1226(c) without a bond hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment granting habeas relief to Black, concluding that the district court properly required the government to show the necessity of his continued detention by clear and convincing evidence. As to G.M., the court concluded that his detention had become unreasonably prolonged and reversed the district court’s judgment denying habeas relief. View "Black v. Decker" on Justia Law

The case in question involves a defendant, Saba Rosario Ventura, who was initially detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the District Court ordered his release on bail pending his criminal trial. The District Court later dismissed the indictment against Ventura, arguing that ICE had detained him in bad faith, aiming to circumvent the bail order. The case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which previously remanded the case to the District Court to clarify whether it had found that ICE's detention of Ventura was a direct violation of a federal court order releasing him under the Bail Reform Act.On remand, the District Court reasserted its claim that ICE's detention of Ventura was pretextual and in bad faith, not for removal, but to detain him pending his criminal trial. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no substantial evidence to support the District Court's assertion. The Court of Appeals noted that the District Court's finding was based on legal arguments rather than factual evidence. It also noted that, even if ICE disagreed with the District Court's assessment of Ventura's risk of flight, it was not enough to prove that ICE's detention was pretextual.The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the District Court's orders, concluding that the finding of ICE's pretextual and bad faith detention of Ventura was clearly erroneous, given the lack of factual evidence. View "United States v. Ventura" on Justia Law

Kwok Sum Wong, a citizen of China and Hong Kong native, petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) that found him removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The IJ had found Wong removable because he had been “convicted” of “two crimes involving moral turpitude.” Wong's offenses were theft by deception under New Jersey law and second-degree forgery under New York law. The BIA determined that a "conviction" under immigration law hinges on whether the offenses were criminal proceedings with “minimum constitutional protections”, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and certain rights such as the right to a speedy trial and protection against double jeopardy.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the BIA’s interpretation of “conviction” was not arbitrary or capricious and that the “minimum constitutional protections” test to ascertain a “conviction” retroactively applies to Wong’s case. The court further held that second-degree forgery under New York law is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and that the statutory phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is not unconstitutionally vague. The court thus denied the petition for review. View "Wong v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT) to the petitioner, Baljinder Singh Bhagtana. Bhagtana, an Indian national, claimed political persecution by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) due to his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar or “Mann” Party and his Sikh religious affiliation. He claimed that he suffered three attacks by BJP members in Kapurthala, Punjab, which resulted in serious injuries and forced him to relocate within India on two occasions.Both the BIA and the IJ determined that Bhagtana could avoid future persecution by relocating within India, as he had done previously without incident. Bhagtana argued that he was safe in these new locations because he was "living in hiding," but this argument was rejected, as activities such as driving a taxicab and attending Mann party meetings contradicted his claim of being in hiding.The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower courts, noting that Bhagtana lived in two different cities in India without harm despite continuing his political activities. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of State’s 2016 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in India did not suggest that members of the Mann Party or Sikhs advocating for a sovereign Sikh state were victims of persecution. The Court of Appeals held that the record did not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA and IJ's findings that Bhagtana could safely and reasonably relocate within India to avoid persecution. The Court of Appeals therefore denied Bhagtana's petition for review and affirmed the decisions of the BIA and the IJ. View "Singh Bhagtana v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a review of an April 20, 2022, decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordering her removal and denying her application for cancellation of removal after determining she had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). That conviction, for abuse of a corpse in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated (“ACA”) Section 5-60-101, stemmed from concealing her child’s body in a closet after he was murdered. In her petition for review, Petitioner argued that the BIA and IJ erred because her conviction under ACA Section 5-60-101 is not categorically a CIMT.   The Second Circuit granted the petition, vacated the BIA’s order of removal and remanded. The court explained that the language of ACA Section 5-60-101(a)(1) allows someone to be convicted if he or she knowingly “removes” or “disinters” a corpse, no matter the reason and without regard to whether it is done in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. The court explained that the broad language makes it clear that one can be convicted under the statute for conduct that is not “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” Thus, because ACA Section 5-60-101 criminalizes conduct that is not invariably vile or depraved, a conviction under the statute cannot categorically be considered a CIMT. The BIA did not conduct an elements-based categorical inquiry. Instead, it applied an inapposite “realistic probability” test. View "Giron-Molina v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal and (2) denying his motion to remand. The BIA rejected Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, declined No. 21-6043 2 to remand for consideration of additional hardship relating to his cancellation application, and declined to remand to await adjudication of his U visa application. Petitioner argued that the BIA (1) applied an incorrect standard when reviewing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (2) overlooked and mischaracterized his new hardship evidence, and (3) failed to follow precedent when denying his request for remand while awaiting the adjudication of his U visa application.   The Second Circuit granted Petitioner’s petition for review, vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded. The court explained that it agrees with Petitioner that the BIA improperly imposed a heightened standard when evaluating whether Petitioner was prejudiced by prior counsel’s deficient performance. The court explained that on remand, the BIA should differentiate between two types of hardship evidence presented by Petitioner in his appeal and motion to remand: (1) hardship evidence that was available to prior counsel and (2) evidence that was not previously available to prior counsel, for which Petitioner must show that the evidence “would likely change the result in the case.” View "Paucar v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the finding that he is removable on the ground that he committed a crime involving moral turpitude for which “a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). The predicate offense, a 2017 conviction for possession of a forged instrument, is a Class A misdemeanor under New York law. In 2019, after his conviction, New York enacted Penal Law Section 70.15(1-a), which lowered the maximum possible sentence for Class A misdemeanors from one year to 364 days. Petitioner asserts that because the statute is retroactive for state law purposes, his prior conviction no longer constitutes a basis for removal because it is not a crime for which “a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,” as required by the removal statute.   The Second Circuit denied Petitoner’s petition. The court wrote that it declines to give retroactive effect to New York’s modification of its sentencing scheme for purposes of federal immigration law. The removal statute focuses on the historical fact of an alien’s prior conviction and thereby consults the state law applicable at the time of the criminal proceedings, not at the time of the removal proceedings. View "Peguero Vasquez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Petitioner applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge found Petitioner not credible and denied her application. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed the IJ’s credibility decision. In addition to challenging the adverse credibility finding, Petitioner claimed for the first time that the border interview record was improperly admitted into evidence at the IJ hearing. The BIA rejected that argument as waived and also rejected it on the merits. Petitioner petitioned the Second Circuit for review.   The Second Circuit granted in part, denied in part, and vacated the BIA’s decision. The court explained that the immigration judge failed to consider various factors that may have affected the reliability of the border interview record. Petitioner claimed that she was frightened during the interview because a border patrol officer hit her and yelled at her upon her arrival to the United States. Petitioner may also have been reluctant to reveal information about persecution because authorities in her home country were allegedly unwilling to help her due to her indigenous status. Moreover, the questions asked during Petitioner’s border interview generally were not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim. The court explained that in Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, it cautioned immigration judges to consider these factors and others before relying on a border interview to find an asylum applicant not credible. Consistent with Ramsameachire and subsequent precedent, the court wrote that immigration judges are required to take such precautions. View "Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland" on Justia Law