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

Fuentes pleaded guilty to illegal reentry by a deported alien, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2), and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Fuentes had waived his argument that the district court erred in its Sentencing Guidelines calculation. The court noted that the plea agreement stated that “[p]ursuant to Guidelines 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) defendant’s offense level is increased by 8 levels because defendant previously was deported after a conviction for an aggravated felony.” The parties had agreed that the resulting advisory Guidelines range was 24-30 months. View "United States v. Fuentes" on Justia Law

Sanchez-Lopez pleaded guilty to unauthorized presence in the U.S. after removal, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment—90 days above the guidelines range. The district court stated that, in an effort to deter future illegal reentry, it was sentencing him to a lengthier term than the sentence he had served the last time he was convicted of the same offense. Sanchez-Lopez had a long history of criminal activity in and removal from the U.S., dating back to his first entry in 1994 and including convictions for DUI, hit-and-run, driving with a suspended license, battery, sexually assaulting an 11-year-old child, and criminal escape. He claimed that his wife’s illness and need for care prompted his latest return. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence. The district court thoughtfully considered Sanchez-Lopez’s personal characteristics, including that he had not committed “serious offenses” since reentering, his reason for returning, and the danger posed to society by his many drunk driving arrests. The court focused on one particular concern in fashioning an appropriate sentence—the need to deter Sanchez-Lopez from continuing to enter the country illegally. That decision was proper; 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(B) specifically instructs courts to consider the need “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.” View "United States v. Sanchez-Lopez" on Justia Law

An illegal immigrant, Sanchez conceded his removability at a hearing before an immigration judge, but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b), which required that he show that he had been physically present in the U.S. for at least 10 years, that during that period he was a person of good moral character, and that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S.‐citizen children, ages eight years, six years, and 15 months. His wife also lacks legal‐resident status and Sanchez was the primary breadwinner for his family, having worked at the same pizza restaurant for 18 years. He admitted having been convicted four times in the past 16 years of driving under the influence, and that he had twice violated conditions of his bond. The immigration judge denied relief. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit stayed his removal pending review of the BIA’s refusal to reopen in light of new evidence in support of Sanchez’ ineffective‐assistance‐of‐counsel claim, including evidence that his children do not speak Spanish and that one child has a disability. View "Sanchez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for Silais, a Haitian citizen and opposition political party member, who had arrived in the U.S. in 2011, without a valid entry document (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)). Silais testified that he had been attacked and threatened because of his political activity. The court upheld the Immigration Judge’s findings that Silais’s testimony was vague and inconsistent, that he had not presented sufficient corroboration, and that he could not show that the Haitian government was unwilling or unable to protect him if he were to return. Silais had never attempted to file a police report or otherwise prompt law enforcement officers to intervene. View "Silais v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Barragan‐Ojeda, an 18-year-old citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2013. He was apprehended at the border and requested asylum. Before an immigration judge, he claimed that a Mexican criminal gang had persecuted him. He mentioned that he had been the victim of employment discrimination because he was effeminate, but denied that he was gay. The IJ denied asylum. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Barragan‐Ojeda filed an affidavit asserting that he was gay and that he had been persecuted because of his sexual orientation. The Board affirmed the denial of asylum on the ground asserted in the original application. With respect to the new ground, the Board declined to remand. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Barragan‐Ojeda’s due process challenge was not presented to the Board and, in any event, the record did not indicate that the IJ’s conduct of the hearing evinced the kind of impatience and bias that might be characterized as a due process violation. The Board correctly evaluated the new evidence submitted by Barragan‐Ojeda under the standards applicable to a reopening and correctly denied relief because he submitted no evidence to establish that his new claim was previously unavailable. View "Barragan-Ojeda v. Sessions" on Justia Law

In 2011 the southern half of Sudan (predominantly Muslim) broke away to form the Republic of South Sudan, the population of which practices Christianity or African traditional religion. Arej, born in South Sudan, was sent as a child to live in the north, where he concealed his Christian faith and his southern ethnicity. He eventually fled to Egypt. He was admitted to the U.S. as a refugee in 2005. He remains a citizen of Sudan. In the U.S., Arej committed assaults; one resulted in a death. After he completed his two-year prison sentence, an IJ ordered him removed to Sudan. Arej sought asylum on the ground that South Sudan was “increasingly volatile and dangerous.” He had missed the 90‐day deadline for filing a motion to reopen and sought an exception on the basis of changed circumstances since the issuance of the removal order. Removed to the north, Arej would be in danger as a southerner, but civil war had broken out in South Sudan; it was reported that 20 percent of the population had been displaced and an “untold number” killed. The IJ denied Arej’s motion. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding that the BIA ignored the growing violence in the south and U.N. concerns about genocide, which constituted evidence that conditions have materially changed. View "Arej v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Yusevs, who overstayed their non-immigrant visas and have lived in the U.S. since 2005, asserted that they had been members of the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden, a banned party devoted to the rights of ethnic Macedonians. They testified about two occasions on which the police assaulted them and that the police came looking for them at their home in 2006 and were still looking in 2007. They submitted reports detailing Bulgaria’s poor treatment of Macedonians. An immigration judge denied relief, finding that they had missed the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), and that their tardiness was not excused by changed circumstances in Bulgaria or extraordinary circumstances. The judge denied their request for withholding and Convention Against Torture protection on the merits, finding that their experiences did not meet the test for past persecution, nor did they support a finding of likely persecution in the future. The BIA affirmed. Represented by new counsel, they moved to reopen the proceedings based on their first lawyer’s ineffectiveness. The Board found the motion untimely and rejected the argument that counsel’s ineffectiveness excused the delay. The Seventh Circuit rejected petitions for review, noting the Yusevs’ lack of diligence. View "Yusev v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Delgado, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection three times, most recently in May 1999. In December 2009, he was convicted in Illinois state court of felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. In 2015, DHS initiated removal proceedings. More than seven years and three petitios later, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed an IJ’s denial of withholding of emoval, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and relief under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. 1208.16(c). Delgado challenged aspects of the expedited removal process under 8 U.S.C. 1228(b) and a corresponding regulation and claimed that the Board committed various legal errors. The Seventh Circuit dismissed Delgado’s petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction. Asylum is a form of discretionary relief in which “there is no liberty interest at stake.” The court denied the remainder of his arguments. The Board engaged in impermissible fact-finding, but the error was harmless. View "Delgado-Arteaga v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Hazama, a U.S. citizen, is married to Ghneim, a citizen of the Palestinian Authority, currently residing there. Hoping to obtain a permanent resident visa for Ghneim, Hazama filed a Petition for Alien Relative with USCIS, which was approved in 2011. Ghneim still had to wait until a visa number became available and had to appear for an interview with a consular officer. Ghneim appeared for his interview at the Jerusalem Consulate in 2013. The officer denied the application, citing: the commission of a crime of moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); previous removal from the U.S., section 1182(a)(9)(A)(ii); and unlawful presence in the U.S., section 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Ghneim's petition for a waiver of the “previously removed” and “unlawful presence” grounds was denied. In 2015, an officer again denied Ghneim’s application, for having personally engaged in terrorist activities, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i). The district court found that the consular official’s reliance on the terrorism provision satisfied all relevant legal standards. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting their mandamus petition. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that unadmitted, nonresident aliens have no free-standing constitutional right to enter the U.S.. Congress delegated broad power to the Executive Branch to decide who will have the privilege of entering; courts generally have no authority to second-guess those decisions. View "Hazama v. Tillerson" on Justia Law

Ulloa, a citizen of Mexico, married Morfin, a U.S. citizen. Morfin sought approval for his permanent residence, but Ulloa was present in the U.S. without authority and was required to return to Mexico to obtain a visa for lawful entry. He applied at the consulate in Juarez. After twice interviewing Ulloa, the State Department denied him a visa, stating that it had reason to believe that he is (or was) involved in drug trafficking. In 2001 Ulloa had been indicted for possessing more than 500 grams of cocaine, with intent to distribute. The U.S. Attorney dismissed the indictment and Ulloa denies the charge, but he lacks a favorable adjudication. The couple sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 702, alleging that the denial was arbitrary and not supported by substantial evidence. The district court found that it lacked jurisdiction because decisions on visa applications are committed to agency discretion and are outside the scope of judicial review under the APA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While the APA does not curtail jurisdiction granted by other laws, the consular officer gave a legitimate reason for denying Ulloa’s application. Precedent prevents the judiciary from reweighing the facts and equities. Whether Congress acted wisely in making “reason to believe” some fact sufficient to support the denial of a visa application is not a question open to review by the judiciary. View "Morfin v. Tillerson" on Justia Law