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

Lara, a citizen of Mexico, married a U.S. citizen in 1988. He gained conditional permanent residency based on that marriage but never completed the process necessary to obtain unconditional permanent residency, 8 U.S.C. 1186a(c). In 2008—10 years after divorcing his wife—he sought permanent residency through a discretionary waiver of the joint-petition requirements available to petitioners who can show that they had entered a failed marriage in good faith. He testified at the removal hearing that he had entered his marriage in good faith and the government offered no evidence to the contrary. Without making a credibility finding, the immigration judge determined that Hernandez’s marriage was not bona fide and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals evaluated Hernandez’s appeal on the assumption that everything he said about his marriage was credible, but concluded that he had not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that his marriage was bona fide. The Seventh Circuit granted relief. Given Lara’s testimony that he had married for love, not immigration benefits—and the government’s lack of evidence— the Board’s conclusion implies that it demanded from Hernandez more proof than necessary to satisfy a preponderance standard. View "Lara v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Liu a Chinese citizen in her mid-twenties, came to the U.S. on a student visa in 2011. She did not attend the school designated on her visa, instead taking free English classes in Chicago. Ten months after her arrival, she unsuccessfully sought asylum. At her removal hearing, Liu testified about her conversion to Christianity while in college in China and that the police raided her house church and asked the congregants why they were gathered. Learning that they were discussing Christianity, the police arrested all seven attendees. Liu was detained for four days in a room apart from her fellow churchgoers. She testified that she was mistreated and was released from detention after her parents paid 800 dollars. Liu was told to cease her church activity and report to the police every week. She was unable to eat and was diagnosed with a concussion. There were several inconsistencies in her testimony. Liu presented testimony from a family friend with whom she lived and attended church in Chicago and some documentation. The IJ denied Liu relief, finding that Liu did not submit adequate, reliable evidence to overcome her “incredible testimony.” The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding that the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Liu v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In the1980s, Habib married a woman in Pakistan and had three children with her there. It is unclear when or how Habib came to the U.S. In 1996, he married Bualice, a U.S. citizen, and three years later adjusted his status to that of lawful permanent resident based on that marriage. Habib did not disclose any children or prior marriages in his application to adjust status or during his interview. He applied for naturalization in 2004 and again neglected to list any children or prior marriages. When interviewed by USCIS, he stated that Bualice was his first wife. USCIS denied Habib’s application in 2010 on the ground that he had obtained lawful permanent residency by fraud and was ineligible for naturalization, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), and because he lacked a valid entry document. At a hearing, Habib’s attorney stated that he had not seen the Notice to Appear but, when given a copy of the document, proceeded to admit and deny the allegations without consulting Habib, who was present. After Habib was ordered removed, the BIA denied a motion to reopen. The Seventh Circuit granted a petition for review, finding that the Board abused its discretion when it determined that Habib was not prejudiced by his lawyer’s mistakes. View "Habib v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Martinez is a native of Guatemala. He became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to knowingly transfer a false identification document, 18 U.S.C. 1028(f). In 2013, the government commenced removal proceedings for having committed a crime of moral turpitude within five years after admission, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Martinez admitted the allegations, but requested a continuance because he had filed a motion to set aside and vacate his conviction. He also argued that he was eligible for a stand-alone waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ ordered that Martinez be removed because he had not demonstrated good cause for a continuance and was ineligible for a waiver. The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. Pending collateral attack is not good cause because its tentative nature does not affect the finality of the conviction for immigration purposes. Martinez admitted that he waived any claim to ineffective assistance of counsel, that he understood his guilty plea could affect his immigration status, and that his attorney advised him of this. View "Palma-Martinez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

In November 2011, defendant was arrested. While in state custody, he was told by a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent that ICE had placed “a hold” on him. If he posted bail, he would be seized by ICE and taken into immigration detention. He was in pretrial detention on state charges until October 2012, when he was convicted on a state obstruction of justice charge. He was detained by the state for 17 months, then taken into custody by ICE and detained while his immigration case was adjudicated. On September 19, 2013, the immigration judge ordered his removal. Defendant withdrew his appeal. On October 17, 2013, defendant was indicted for illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. 1326) and taken into federal criminal custody. He pled guilty to that charge, arguing that a below-guideline sentence would be appropriate, noting that he would not receive credit for the time served in immigration custody. The court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 57 months. The Seventh Circuit remanded. The court should have addressed defendant’s argument that the court should have reduced his sentence because the delay in charging him effectively denied him the ability to receive credit toward his federal criminal sentence for the months he spent in state custody and in immigration custody. View "United States v. Estrada-Mederos" on Justia Law

Nadmid, a 57-year-old citizen of Mongolia, came to the U.S. in 2003 on a visitor’s visa. After being arrested for DUI, he voluntarily departed in 2006 and returned to Mongolia, where he started a business. Nadmid returned to the U.S. in 2009. He stated that he was visiting his daughter (who holds a green card), and answered ”no” when asked if he feared returning to Mongolia. In a second interview, after speaking with his daughter, Nadmid stated that, if returned to Mongolia, he feared being killed for rebuffing extortion demands. He described confrontations and threats. An asylum officer, speaking through a translator, determined that Nadmid had a credible fear of persecution. In his asylum application and testimony, Nadmid claimed to have been abducted and beaten. The IJ concluded that Nadmid was not credible, finding inconsistencies in the airport interviews “significant problems.” The IJ gave little weight to newspapers or to a medical certificate. Nadmid’s proposed social group, “Mongolian business owners who seek to expose and end political corruption,” was premised on a profession rather than any immutable, fundamental characteristic. The IJ found that Nadmid did not qualify for withholding of removal or for protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding the credibility determination flawed. View "Nadmid v. Holder" on Justia Law

Mathin sought a declaration of United States nationality, claiming that his Indian-citizen parents had traveled for business while his mother was eight months pregnant with him, and that he was born prematurely in Chicago on September 23, 1965, at the home of a friend, Nielsen, with whom they were staying. According to Mathin, a midwife was present at the birth, along with the midwife’s 17-year-old niece, Nielsen, and Nielsen’s mother. Only Mathin’s father was still living at the time of trial. Mathin stated that after his birth, he was taken to Norwegian American Hospital for examination. No birth certificate was filed. Mathin was unable to provide any records from Norwegian American Hospital indicating that he was there. Although the State Department attempted to verify his parents’ travel through the visa or passport records, it was unable to find any record of the trip. The district court held that Mathin had failed to establish that he was a United States national. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court has recognized that doubts should be resolved in favor of the United States in cases involving a petition under 8 U.S.C. 1503. View "Mathin v. Kerry" on Justia Law

Chen, a Chinese citizen, entered the U.S. in 2005. DHS sought to remove him as “an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Conceding removability, Chen has applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He argued that Chinese authorities will persecute him for refusing, by having two children, to follow the one‐child policy. He testified that he fled China after he was arrested, detained for six months, and beaten, in his home province of Fujian, when officials found out that his wife was pregnant with their second child. The police released him after his parents paid 480 dollars, on the condition that his wife undergo forced sterilization or they pay a fine of approximately 3,200 dollars to register the son. During the removal proceedings, the case focused on whether Chen actually has two children. The IJ denied relief and the BIA denied a motion to reopen. The Seventh Circuit remanded: the BIA must determine whether Chen’s attorneys incompetently neglect ed to offer evidence and arguments that might have resolved the inconsistencies identified by the IJ and whether the IJ would have ruled against Chen anyway. View "Chen v. Holder" on Justia Law

He, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. in 2007 through Indonesia and Canada. A year later He retained an attorney to apply for asylum based on mistreatment (arrest and beatings) that he had suffered in Fujian Province on account of his Christian beliefs. A month later, the Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability as an alien present in the U.S. without being admitted or paroled, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). The immigration judge denied relief, finding that: He’s testimony was not credible; he failed (under the REAL ID Act) to provide corroborating evidence; He was statutorily ineligible for asylum because he did not apply within one year of his arrival; and He was ineligible for withholding or CAT protection because he failed to show it is more likely than not that his life would be threatened or that he would be tortured in China. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed and denied a motion to reconsider. The Seventh Circuit denied He’s petition for review, which focused on only the underlying denial of his application for asylum and withholding, a ruling not properly before the court. He did not argue that denial of his motion to reconsider was erroneous. View "He v. Holder" on Justia Law

Lenjinac was born in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1987 and is a Muslim. From 1992 to 1995, Bosnia-Herzegovina was entrenched in a civil war, characterized by ethnic cleansing. Lenjinac’s family home was burned to the ground and Serbian forces captured several male family members who have not been seen since. In 2002, Lenjinac emigrated to the U.S. He became a permanent resident in 2005. In 2010, Lenjinac pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine. Charged with removability as an aggravated felon (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)), Lenjinac sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. He indicated that given his criminal history in the U.S., he would likely be detained upon his return and tortured. He stated that he would have no safe place to live because he has no family or home in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The IJ only considered CAT deferral because the aggravated felony conviction rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and granted his application. Although the BIA accepted the IJ’s findings of fact, it vacated the deferral of removal, citing lack of evidence that parties in Bosnia-Herzegovina retained an interest in harming Lenjinac or that he would be imprisoned for the purpose of causing him pain and suffering. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Lenjinac v. Holder" on Justia Law