Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A former immigration attorney was convicted of conspiring with clients, interpreters, and employees to defraud the U.S. by submitting fabricated asylum applications. The attorney would create false stories for clients, often including fabricated details of persecution, and submit these to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Interpreters assisted by coaching clients to memorize false information and providing fraudulent translations during asylum interviews. Nine former clients testified against the attorney, and the jury found him guilty of conspiracy to defraud the U.S.The attorney's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. He then moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, claiming undisclosed benefits were provided to witnesses. The district court authorized broad discovery, held a weeklong hearing, and denied the motion. The court found that undisclosed pre-trial benefits were immaterial and that post-trial benefits did not violate the attorney's rights as they were not promised to witnesses and would not have affected the trial's outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the undisclosed pre-trial benefits were immaterial and that the post-trial assistance provided to witnesses did not constitute a Brady violation. The court found no evidence of pre-trial promises regarding immigration status and concluded that the undisclosed availability of an "insider" for post-trial assistance was not material to the trial's outcome. The attorney's § 2255 motion was denied. View "Dekelaita v. USA" on Justia Law

The Department of Homeland Security served Pilar Sandoval Reynoso with a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability for unlawfully residing in the United States. Sandoval applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, concluding that he did not establish ten years of continuous physical presence, did not show that his qualifying relative children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial, including the discretionary finding.The IJ found that Sandoval had not established ten years of continuous physical presence and had not shown that his children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. The IJ also determined that Sandoval did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion due to his history of criminal and civil infractions, including multiple illegal entries into the U.S. and a DUI conviction. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that Sandoval did not merit cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary decision to deny Sandoval’s application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The court also lacked jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s review of the IJ’s decision. Consequently, the court dismissed Sandoval’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction and denied the remainder of his petition. View "Sandoval Reynoso v. Garland" on Justia Law

Juan Santiago Lopez, a Mexican citizen, sought to overturn an immigration judge's denial of his request for cancellation of removal. Lopez had been in the United States for nearly 20 years, working for the same company and raising four children with his wife. However, he had also accumulated three convictions for driving while intoxicated. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him after his third conviction. Lopez conceded his removability but applied for cancellation of removal relief, arguing that his family circumstances, particularly the burden his removal would place on his wife, warranted cancellation.The immigration judge denied Lopez's request for cancellation of removal but granted his request for voluntary departure. The judge acknowledged Lopez's positive equities, such as his long-term residence, employment, and family ties in the U.S., but found that his history of drunk driving and disregard for U.S. laws outweighed these factors. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge's decision.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Lopez challenged the immigration judge's discretionary decision and argued that the missing date and time information in his Notice to Appear required termination of removal proceedings. The court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, which clarified that courts lack jurisdiction to review substantive challenges to an immigration judge's discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal. The court also rejected Lopez's argument about the Notice to Appear, noting that objections to such violations can be forfeited if not raised in a timely manner. View "Lopez v. Garland" on Justia Law

Maria Elvia Smith, a Mexican citizen, was denied legal status in the U.S. by immigration authorities. Smith had been married to a U.S. citizen, Arlo Henry Smith, Sr., who filed a Form I-130 petition to classify her as his immediate-relative spouse. However, Arlo died while the petition was pending, and it automatically converted to an I-360, Widow(er) Petition. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Smith's I-360 petition, concluding that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her marriage to Arlo was bona fide for immigration purposes. This conclusion was based on evidence of Smith's continued relationship with her ex-husband and her inconsistent statements to immigration officials.Smith sued the United States Attorney General, USCIS, and the Board, alleging that they improperly denied her I-360 petition and violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin dismissed her complaint, finding that she did not plausibly allege that USCIS and the Board acted improperly in denying her petition, acted without observance of the procedure required by law, or substantively violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the agencies had considered the evidence, applied the proper standards and burden of proof, and validly elected not to credit Smith’s statements in light of her past untruthfulness. The court also found that the agencies had complied with the procedures required by law and that Smith had received all the process due to her. Finally, the court rejected Smith's claim that the agencies violated her procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. View "Smith v. Garland" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Israel Juan Miguel Urzua Ortega, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for a review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his request for withholding of removal. Ortega had illegally reentered the United States and his prior order of removal was reinstated. However, he sought withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that he would face persecution in Mexico from individuals the Mexican government would not control.Ortega, who spent most of his life in Mexico City, faced multiple threats and attacks, including murder threats from his father's cousin, Tacho, a member of the Sinaloa cartel. He claimed that even while in the U.S., he continued receiving threats. Ortega was arrested in 2021 for driving on a revoked license, and his 2006 removal order was reinstated. He claimed a fear of returning to Mexico, but his claim was denied by an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, who found him ineligible for withholding of removal.The court reviewed both the decisions of the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The court applied a highly deferential standard of review and concluded that substantial evidence supported the decisions that Ortega failed to establish that he would be persecuted by groups or individuals that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control. The court noted that the Mexican government had been responsive to the prior threats against Ortega, that Tacho was incarcerated in Mexico, and that Ortega had continued to receive threats even while living in the United States. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "Ortega v. Garland" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was asked to review a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concerning F.J.A.P., a petitioner from El Salvador. F.J.A.P. had previously been removed from the U.S. but returned due to threats from the MS-13 gang. After his return to the U.S., his original removal order was reinstated. F.J.A.P. then applied for withholding-only relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which an immigration judge granted. However, the BIA reversed this decision. F.J.A.P. petitioned the Seventh Circuit for review.The court first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to review F.J.A.P.'s claim. The court concluded that a reinstated order of removal was not final for purposes of judicial review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 until the agency had completed withholding proceedings. Therefore, F.J.A.P.'s petition was timely because it was filed within 30 days of the completion of his CAT proceedings.On the merits of the case, the court found that the BIA had not applied the correct standard of review to the immigration judge's decision. The BIA was required to review the immigration judge's factual findings for clear error, not de novo. However, the BIA had failed to address the immigration judge's key factual findings, had given more weight to certain facts in the record than others, and had not explained how the immigration judge's alleged errors displayed a lack of logic, plausibility, or support in the record. As a result, the court granted F.J.A.P.'s petition and remanded the case to the BIA for reconsideration of the immigration judge's decision under the correct standard of review. View "F. J. A. P. v. Garland" on Justia Law

Four Iranian nationals, who had previously completed mandatory military service in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), were denied visas to enter the United States. Their family members, three U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident, filed a suit against the President and several federal officials responsible for visa applications. They alleged that the defendants unlawfully deprived visa applicants the opportunity to establish eligibility for terrorism-related inadmissibility grounds (TRIG) exemptions, violating their rights under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, which bars judicial review of consular decisions. The Plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the doctrine of consular nonreviewability applied, and that the plaintiffs failed to show any evidence of bad faith that could overcome this doctrine. The court also held that the applicants were not entitled to any more explanation for their visa denials than the citation to the section of the law on which the denial was based. View "Pak v. Biden" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) for petitioner Kamaljit Singh, a native and citizen of India. Singh alleged that he had been persecuted in India due to his support for a minority political party, and feared return due to ongoing threats. The immigration judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) both denied Singh’s application on credibility grounds, finding inconsistencies in his account. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, finding that the BIA's adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence. The court also agreed with the BIA's determination that the harm Singh had suffered in India did not rise to the level of past persecution necessary to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. In addition, the court held that Singh had waived his claims for future persecution and CAT protection by failing to properly raise them before the BIA. Lastly, the court determined that Singh's due process claims, including a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, had not been properly exhausted before the BIA and therefore could not be reviewed on appeal. As a result, Singh's petition for review was denied. View "Singh v. Merrick Garland" on Justia Law

Kibambe Mwendapeke, a permanent resident of the United States and a citizen of the Congo, was convicted of complicity to robbery in the first degree under Kentucky law. Later, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Mwendapeke based on his conviction. He appealed, arguing that his conviction should not categorize him as an "aggravated felon," which would render him removable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Mwendapeke's conviction is indeed a categorical match for an "aggravated felony."The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Mwendapeke's crime was a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), a requirement for classification as an "aggravated felony." The court found that Kentucky’s first-degree robbery statute, under which Mwendapeke was convicted, meets the level of force and has the required mens rea, or state of mind, for a "crime of violence" under § 16(a). The court also concluded that Kentucky’s complicity statute is not overbroad with respect to generic aiding-and-abetting liability. Therefore, the court ruled that Mwendapeke's conviction constituted an aggravated felony, making him removable. The court denied his petition for review. View "Mwendapeke v. Merrick B. Garland" on Justia Law

Uulu lived with his wife and children in Kyrgyzstan. He joined an opposition party. In 2013, Uulu attended a peaceful protest, during which police fired tear gas at the crowd and attacked protesters. They took Uulu to a police station where they hit him with a filled bottle and placed cellophane over his head, causing him to lose consciousness. Uulu testified that he was detained for several hours with a chemical in the room, making him dizzy. The next morning he was returned to the station. When he returned home, unknown men beat him until he was unconscious. He woke up in the hospital.Two months later, he entered the United States on a tourist visa. Uulu says that the Kyrgyz government subsequently convicted him of “organizing mass riots” and sentenced him in absentia. An asylum officer classified him as removable (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(B)). In 2018, an immigration court held a hearing at which Uulu testified and presented corroborating documents. The judge ordered Uulu’s voluntary removal, finding that Uulu made shifting statements about key events in his asylum application, interview, and hearing testimony, including about whether police harmed him, how long he was detained, and the attack. Uulu’s corroborating statements were from interested parties who were not available for cross-examination. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Acknowledging concerns about the review of his corroborating evidence, the court found Uulu’s account included too many inconsistencies to upset the conclusion that he was not credible. View "Uulu v. Garland" on Justia Law