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

Stokes was a public school teacher for more than 10 years. In 2000, he pleaded no contest to a charge of misdemeanor battery for indecently touching two boys who were his students. Stokes was sentenced to probation, with a prohibition on unsupervised contact with minors. Less than a month after sentencing, Stokes obtained permission to complete his probation in Thailand. Within weeks of his arrival in Thailand, he began seeking boys for sex. This continued for several years until someone tipped off the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, which, with the Royal Thai Police, searched Stokes’s home and recovered a camera, a computer, and compact discs containing thousands of images of Stokes’s sexual activity with Thai boys. Stokes was extradited and convicted of traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a sex act with a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting claims related to a procedural mistake in the extradition process and to the legality of the search. The Thai foreign ministry waived the “Rule of Specialty,” allowing the government to proceed on a substitute charge. The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and the Warrant Clause have no extraterritorial application, but Stokes was protected by the Amendment’s touchstone requirement of reasonableness. The search was reasonable. View "United States v. Stokes" on Justia Law

Zivkovic, a Serbian, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1966. In 1976, he pleaded guilty to burglary and received a sentence of two to six years. In 1978, he was convicted of attempted rape and was sentenced to four to 12 years. In 2010, he was convicted of criminal trespass to a residence with a person present and of aggravated battery, where the aggravating factor was the victim’s age. In 2004 Zivkovic was charged as removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G); for attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A) (murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor); and under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), as an alien convicted of two crimes. The BIA ordered removal because he had committed three aggravated felonies and was not eligible for special relief under 8 U.S.C. 1182(c). The Seventh Circuit granted Zivkovic’s petition, reasoning that two of his convictions are more than 35 years old and that the law has not remained static. The statutes are ambiguous and presumptions against retroactivity and implied repeal require remand. The court noted that even one of the convictions would guarantee near-automatic removal, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). View "Zivkovic v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1993, Zambrano, a lawful permanent U.S. resident, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a minor, an aggravated felony that made him deportable. He served four years of probation. Until 1996, permanent resident aliens facing deportation could apply for a discretionary Section 212(c) waiver. Zambrano, having been in the U.S. since 1979 and not having served any jail time for his felonies, likely would have obtained, a Section 212(c) waiver had his deportation order been entered before 1996. His removal proceedings began in 1998, after enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 212(c) waivers were replaced with narrower discretionary relief, “cancellation of removal,” under which the Attorney General may cancel removal for certain lawful permanent residents, but not for those convicted of aggravated felonies. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(3). Zambrano was removed 2000. A decade later, back in the U.S, he was charged with illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. 1326. Zambrano pleaded guilty, but on the eve of sentencing, moved to withdraw his plea, based on the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision, Judulang v. Holder. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Zambrano to 12 months and one day. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Zambrano" on Justia Law

Bathula and her husband, Reddy, citizens of India, separately applied for asylum, claiming that their family had been subjected to persecution at the hands of a local criminal group after Reddy testified against its members on trial for murder. The Department of Homeland Security denied the petitions. In removal proceedings, they together renewed their request for asylum and requested withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied relief and ordered removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, then denied a request to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Seventh Circuit denied petitions for review, finding no evidence that would require a fact-finder to conclude that the petitioners were subjected to past persecution or that any harm was on account of a statutorily protected ground. They showed no prejudice from ineffective assistance. View "Bathula v. Holder" on Justia Law

FH-T joined the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in 1982 at age 15, while Eritrea and Ethiopia were engaged in a 30-year war. The EPLF refused to let him leave. For nine years he worked in communications and as a driver. He did not transport weapons. In 1994, the EPLF dissolved and became Eritrea’s only political party. FH-T was employed at a government-owned company, and, in 2005-2006, repeatedly expressed concerns about abuses of the compulsory National Service program. FH-T was imprisoned in a military prison camp for five months. After release, he remained under surveillance, was regularly interrogated, and received threats on his life. He fled Eritrea and sought asylum in the U.S. His father and sister were arrested when he left. An Immigration Judge denied FH-T’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, 8 U.S.C. 1158. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on the basis that he had provided material support to the EPLF, classified as a “Tier III” terrorist organization, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). The Seventh Circuit denied review, rejecting challenges to the system and an argument that he was eligible for an exemption because he did not know that the EPLF was involved in the unlawful use of force; he did not exhaust this argument before the Board. View "F. H.-T. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Gao, from Fujian in southeastern China, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2005 with the goal of earning money to send home to his family in China. Shortly after he arrived Gao’s wife (in China) gave birth to the couple’s second child, a daughter,and was sterilized. Gao sought asylum on the ground that his wife’s sterilization amounted to persecution of him.An IJ denied his petition and ordered him removed to China. The Board dismissed his appeal, reiterating its rule that spouses of persons subjected to forced sterilization no longer qualify automatically for asylum. One day after the applicable 90-day deadline, Gao moved to amend his asylum application to add a claim that he feared that he would be subjected to religious persecution if he was returned because he had connverted to Christianity. The Board denied this motion, concluding that Gao had not established changed country conditions necessary to excuse untimely filing. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. View "Gao v. Holder" on Justia Law

Almutairi served in the Kuwaiti Air Force in1990, when Iraq invaded. Almutairi joined a resistance group. Iraqi soldiers captured him and for nine days he was brutally tortured. Almutairi cracked under the pressure and brought the Iraqi soldiers to a house that he thought would be unoccupied. When the soldiers entered the house, they found and arrested a man. They released Almutairi, Days later the soldiers publicly executed the man from the house, along with three others. Almutairi fled the country, but he and his family returned, after the country’s liberation. Almutairi received threatening phone. Two years after the threats, after spending time in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, Almutairi came to the U.S. in 1994 on a nonimmigrant student visa. He ended his studies 10 years later. In 2006 he was served with a Notice to Appear for violating his visa. The following year, after his family had received another threatening phone call in Kuwait, he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that the asylum application was untimely and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision to deny withholding of relief. View "Almutairi v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1998, Zheng, under the legal age for marriage in China, became pregnant by her boyfriend, who also was under age. The government family planning officials took Zheng to a hospital, where she underwent an abortion. Zheng left China shortly thereafter, entered the U.S. illegally in 1999, married, and had two children. Zheng sought asylum in 2006, claiming she had undergone a forced abortion and feared that, if returned to China, she would be sterilized for having had two children. In 2008 an immigration judge denied Zheng’s application for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that she had missed the one-year deadline for filing an asylum application, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), and did not qualify for any exception, and, in the alternative that even if the birth of Zheng’s second child was a circumstance that allowed for an exception to the deadline, asylum would have been denied because the birth of two children in the U.S. does not give rise to a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her appeal and ordered her removed. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded. View "Zheng v. Holder" on Justia Law

Akram, her mother, and her younger sister were citizens of Pakistan. Akram’s mother married Siddique, a U.S. citizen, in 2005 when Akram was 18 years old. The marriage occurred outside the U.S.; Siddique requested K visas so that the women could wait for permanent visas in the U.S. and filed I-130 petitions to make them eligible for immigrant visas as “immediate relatives” of a citizen. 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i). Akram’s mother and sister received K-3 visas and their I-130 Petitions were granted. Akram’s request for a K visa was granted, but her I-130 petition was denied because of inconsistent definitions, such that she was too old to be Siddique’s “child,” even though she was still her mother’s “minor child.” Akram’s mother became a lawful permanent resident and filed her own I-130 alien relative petition on Akram’s behalf in 2008, which is pending. Akram remained in the U.S. after her K-4 visa expired, and removal proceedings began in 2009. An Immigration Judge held that 8 C.F.R. 245.1(i) bars Akram from adjusting status by any means other than through Siddique. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. The Seventh Circuit reversed, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act as "Byzantine” and concluding that the regulation at issue conflicts with congressional intent. View "Akram v. Holder" on Justia Law

In 1996, Singh fled India to escape police officers allegedly trying to kill him. In 1997 he was charged as removeable. He sought asylum based on his religion and political beliefs and withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In 2009 an Immigration Judge denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review, finding the agency’s conclusions about past persecution “problematic,” but agreeing that Singh does not have a well-founded fear of future persecution. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law