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

Jeudy entered the U.S. from Haiti in 1980 without inspection. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In 2009, the government charged him as removable based on his 1995 guilty plea to attempted possession of crack cocaine, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(B)(i). An alien found to be deportable at that time could be eligible for discretionary relief. Among other requirements, an alien had to accrue a certain period of continuous presence or residence in the U.S. While conviction rendered him deportable, he continued to accrue time toward a period of continuous residence. In 1996, he reached the required seven years under 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). In 1997, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act added the “stop-time rule,” which cuts off the accrual of time toward those years of continuous residence upon service of notice to appear or commission of certain offenses, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1). Jeudy has no family in Haiti, and has three children who are American citizens. The immigration judge found that the stop-time rule applied retroactively to cut off Jeudy’s period of continuous residence in 1995. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit granted Jeudy’s petition for review. The stop-time rule does not convey a clear intent to govern retroactively, and the stop-time rule would have an impermissible retroactive effect if it were applied to Jeudy’s 1995 drug offense.View "Jeudy v. Holder" on Justia Law

Khan is a Mohajir: his parents were immigrants into Pakistan when it was partitioned from the British Indian Empire in 1947. Some Mohajirs formed a political party—the Mohajir Qaumi Movement—in response to perceived repression by nonimmigrant locals. Khan joined in 1992 when he was 14 or 15 years old. He distributed flyers, attended meetings, and recruited people to the cause. The group became increasingly violent, however, and many Mohajirs, including Khan, left to join a new, supposedly more peaceful group, MQM-Haqiqi. But this party too resorted to violence, so Khan eventually left. Khan became a target and was repeatedly attacked, kidnapped, and tortured by members of the first party. He fled to the U.S. on a visitor visa, and when it expired, sought asylum and other forms of relief from removal. While his case was pending, he married a U.S. citizen, making him eligible for permanent residency through his marriage. An immigration judge accepted the government’s position, rejecting Khan under the “terrorism bar,” 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(I); the BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied review, declining to interpret the “knowledge exception” to the terrorism bar because Khan did not raise it before the BIA.View "Khan v. Holder" on Justia Law

Ramirez, a citizen of Guatemala, was admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident in 1977, then seven years old. He has remained in the U.S. After three years of high school, he joined the Marine Corps. He later obtained his GED, attended community college, and received certification to become an optical technician. He has been consistently employed as an adult. He lives with his fiancé, who suffers from lupus and Sjögren’s syndrome and is unable to work, and their son, born in 2003. Ramirez’s mother, siblings, grandmother, and uncles live in the U.S. In 1990 he: was convicted of inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse or cohabitant and sentenced to 79 days in jail; received a bad conduct discharge from the military for writing bad checks and was sentenced to 90 days’ incarceration; and pled guilty to committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under the age of 14, received a sentence of six years’ imprisonment and relinquished parental rights to his daughter, the victim’s half-sister. Ramirez was last convicted in 1990. He has, however, been questioned or arrested multiple times since then. An immigration judge found Ramirez “credible” at a hearing requesting discretionary relief from removal, but relied on uncorroborated arrest reports to find that Ramirez failed to show “rehabilitation.” The BIA affirmed. The Seventh Circuit granted a petition for review, stating that the BIA erred by failing to follow its own binding precedent.View "Avila-Ramirez v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of Mexico, appealed the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The court held that the courts of appeal lack jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief in immigration proceedings. The court adhered to the rule that 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B) excludes from the court's jurisdiction challenges to an IJ's application of the law to the facts of a case when the grounds for relief sought are discretionary, and that in such a case the subpart (B) exclusion is unaffected by section 1252(a)(2)(D). In this case, the court dismissed the petition for review to the extent that the court lacked jurisdiction and the court denied the remaining arguments. View "Adame v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Albu, a Romanian citizen, applied for asylum in 2003. His application would have been deficient in a number of ways, but at the prompting of his attorney (who was subsequently convicted of asylum fraud) he engaged in deception, lying about religious persecution, his date of entry, and his home address. When his lies came to light, he was subject to 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(6), which makes any person who files a frivolous asylum application permanently ineligible for any immigration benefits. He was placed in removal proceedings. Both the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals applied the statutory bar and denied him cancellation of removal. The Seventh Circuit denied an appeal. View "Albu v. Holder" on Justia Law

Yang, a citizen of China, entered the U.S. in 1998, as a tourist. In 2000, he married a U.S. citizen, who filed an I-130 visa petition and application for adjustment of status on Yang’s behalf, but withdrew her petition in 2003. , Yang’s application was denied after an investigation led USCIS to conclude that his marriage was fraudulent. In 2007 he divorced. Yang then filed an application for asylum and associated relief based on his practice of Falun Gong. Although Falun Gong was not officially banned in China until 1999, in 1998 the police arrested Yang and placed him in a cell overnight. Yang continued practicing Falun Gong in the U.S. and believed that Chinese officials knew of his practice. In 2008, Yang married Li, who immediately filed an I-130 petition on his behalf. USCIS sent notice of intent to deny, because it believed that Yang’s prior marriage had been a sham. Li submitted rebuttal materials, but USCIS lost them and denied the petition for lack of support. The IJ denied a continuance pending adjudication of the I-130. Yang also sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He was unsuccessful. The Seventh Circuit remanded the BIA’s decision to uphold the IJ’s denial of a continuance pending adjudication of Yang’s I- 130. View "Yang v. Holder" on Justia Law

Sobaleva, a citizen of Belarus, entered the U.S. on a valid student visa. She applied for asylum, contending that the Belarusian government persecuted her for her political opinion before she left and likely would do so again if she were to return. She also requested asylum for her husband, Potorac, a citizen of Moldova. An immigration judge denied Sobaleva’s application and ordered that she and Potorac be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, stating that Sobaleva had not established either past persecution based on her political opinion or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding two significant flaws in the decisions: the judge and the Board applied the wrong legal standard to conclude that Sobaleva was not persecuted in Belarus and misconstrued and disregarded important evidence. View "Sobaleva v. Holder" on Justia Law

The Child Status Protection Act, 8 U.S.C. 1153(h), allows adult children of lawful permanent residents to maintain child status if their parent filed a visa petition on their behalf while they were under 21 and prevents such children from aging out of visa priority while their petition is under review. But an immigrant may take advantage of this provision only if he “sought to acquire the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence within one year” of a visa number becoming available. Velásquez is the adult child of a lawful permanent resident. In 2005, when Velásquez was 17, his father filed a visa petition on his behalf. Velásquez’s visa number became available in March 2011. Velásquez took steps to acquire permanent-resident status within one year, but did not file a formal application for permanent status until 14 months after his visa number became available. Later, the Board of Immigration Appeals adopted a new rule that required an immigrant to file or attempt to file a substantially complete application for permanent status within one year to satisfy the “sought to acquire” prerequisite. Because Velásquez had not done so, the Board ordered him removed. The Seventh Circuit remanded, finding the new interpretation of the Act’s ambiguous language to be reasonable, but holding that retroactive application works a manifest injustice in Velásquez’s case, View "Velasquez-Garcia v. Holder" on Justia Law

Baptist is a native of Belize who entered the U.S.as a lawful permanent resident in 1988.In 1992, Baptist pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to probation. In 1995, Baptist was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was again sentenced to probation. In 1996, Baptist was again convicted of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. At the time, the offense was considered an aggravated felony and he was placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). Baptist signed a stipulated removal order in 1998. Afterwards, he illegally reentered the U.S. several times; each time he was discovered, he was again removed to Belize. In 2005, Baptist illegally entered once more and avoided detection until he was arrested in 2010. Charged with being illegally present in the U.S. after having been previously removed, 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). Baptist moved to dismiss the indictment, collaterally attacking his 1998 removal as violating his due process rights. The district court denied Baptist’s motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that Baptist failed to establish that his removal proceedings were “fundamentally unfair.” View "United States v. Baptist" on Justia Law

Wang, a citizen of China was smuggled into the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1999, then age 21. Within two days, authorities discovered him and took him into custody. He was personally served with a notice to appear in the New Orleans immigration court at a “[t]ime and date to be set later.” There is no immigration court in the U.S. Virgin Islands. From a New Orleans detention facility, Wang was released on $15,000 bond, providing a North Carolina address. The immigration court twice attempted to inform Wang of the date of his hearing. Although Wang received the first notice, apparently neither was properly served. Wang did not appear and, in November 1999, the immigration judge closed the case. Wang remained in the U.S., married a Chinese citizen, and had children with her. In 2009 he voluntarily returned to immigration court and moved to recalendar his proceedings. He stated that he was pursuing a U Visa and planned to seek asylum and relief under the Convention Against Torture. A U Visa is available to certain noncitizen crime victims who “have been or are likely to be helpful to authorities in investigating or prosecuting that crime.” Wang believed that he was eligible as a victim of human trafficking. An immigration judge continued the case for 20 months. At the next hearing in 2012, the IJ learned that Wang had not obtained a U Visa and denied cancellation of removal on the ground that Wang lacked the required 10 years of continuous presence; his qualifying time ended when he was served with Notice to Appear two days after his arrival. The BIA and Seventh Circuit dismissed appeals. A notice that does not specify a particular time and date for the initial hearing suffices for purposes of the “stop-time” rule. View "Wang v. Holder" on Justia Law