Case Summaries

Immigration Law

[09/09] Vartelas v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings, the petition is denied where petitioner was not prejudiced by his attorneys' failure to argue that he was nonremovable based on his prior offenses.

[09/09] Lozano v. City of Hazleton
In plaintiffs' suit against the City of Hazleton to enjoin enforcement of ordinances that attempt to regulate employment of, and provision of rental housing to, certain aliens, district court's entry of permanent injunction against the city is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in reaching the merits of the challenge to the private cause of action provision because no plaintiff has standing to challenge that provision; 2) the employment provisions of the ordinances stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of IRCA's objective, and thus are preempted; and 3) the housing provisions of the city's ordinances are preempted regulations of immigration, and both field and conflict preempted by the INA.

[09/09] Vilela v. Holder
A Brazilian citizen's petition for review of a BIA's final order of removal is denied as substantial evidence supported the IJ's and BIA's conclusions that petitioner failed to establish a nexus between the harm he had suffered and any protected ground, and failed to establish that what he suffered rose to the level of persecution.

[09/09] Chiang v. MBNA
In plaintiff's suit against his credit card company claiming that the company, as a furnisher of credit information, violated section 1681s-2(b)(1) by failing to follow up on disputed delinquent payments with a further investigation, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as there is no evidence that a credit reporting agency, rather than just plaintiff himself, had ever contacted defendant concerning his objections.

[09/08] Vukmirovic v. Holder
In a petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's motion to reopen, the petition is granted where the case presented "exceptional circumstances" within the meaning of the controlling statute, 8 U.S.C. section 1252b(f)(2), and thus a remand for the asylum hearing the court held that petitioner was entitled to in 2004 was warranted.

[09/08] Vanchurina v. Holder
A couple's petition for review of a final order of removal of the BIA is denied where: 1) substantial evidence supports the BIA's finding that the nature and context of the petitioners' claim - one that entails criminal extortion and threats - did not establish grounds for asylum; and 2) substantial evidence supports the finding that the wife was not subjected to extortion on account of a protected ground.

[09/08] US v. Diaz-Jimenez
In a prosecution of defendant for being present in the United States illegally, district court's imposition of a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment is reversed and remanded as there was a serious breach of the plea agreement that defendant be recommended a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range of 18 months, and the defendant is also entitled to be resentenced by a different judge.

[09/08] Huang v. U.S. Attorney General
A Chinese citizen's petition for review of a BIA's reversal of IJ's grant of asylum is granted where: 1) the BIA's final order of removal is vacated and remanded as the BIA's decision does not indicate that a full review took place in this case; 2) the BIA's denial of the motion to remand with respect to the certification is vacated.

[09/07] Hamdi v. Napolitano
In a severely disabled minor child's action under the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from removing his mother on the ground that the mother's removal violated his own constitutional rights as an American citizen, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. section 1252(g) does not apply to independent actions brought by a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights; 2) the APA does not provide subject matter jurisdiction in this case; 3) a citizen child raising distinct constitutional rights may assert federal question subject matter jurisdiction; and 4) dismissal was proper because petitioner failed to state a constitutional claim upon which relief may be granted.

[09/07] Mozden v. Holder
A Polish family's petition for review of the BIA's affirmance of an IJ's finding the petitioners removable is denied where: 1) petitioners failed to establish lawful presence; 2) BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance; and 3) the BIA properly affirmed the IJ's finding that the mother did not qualify for consideration of cancellation of removal.

[09/03] US v. Munoz-Camarena
A sentence for attempted illegal re-entry after deportation is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010), which casts doubt on the district court's calculation of the recommended Guidelines sentence in this case.

[09/03] Luna v. Holder
Petitions for review of final orders of removal are transferred to the district court for further proceedings where: 1) although the petitions are untimely, the REAL ID Act did not divest district courts of habeas jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claims that they were prevented by circumstances beyond their control from filing timely petitions for review; and 2) thus, the circuit court need not decide whether the statutory 30-day filing requirement violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution in cases in which an alien misses the deadline because of ineffective assistance of counsel or circumstances created by the government.

[09/02] US v. Millis
Defendant's conviction under 50 C.F.R. section 27.94(a) for placing full, gallon-sized plastic bottles of water on trails in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge to help alleviate exposure deaths among undocumented immigrants crossing into the U.S. is reversed where the term "garbage" within the context of the regulation was sufficiently ambiguous that the rule of lenity would apply in this case.

[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.

[09/02] Camacho-Cruz v. Holder
In a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of cancellation of removal because of petitioner's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada state law, the petition is dismissed where petitioner’s conviction was categorically a crime of violence.

Back to Main