Recently in Immigration Law Category

A guy walks into a bar … I mean, walks to the border. Seeking to enter the country, he says, “S’up. I’m a United States Citizen.” He is then admitted into the country … in handcuffs.

There were two problems with Mariano Anguiano-Morfin’s assertion. For one, he had previously been removed from the country, and had his lawful residence revoked. The other issue? Falsely claiming that you are a U.S. Citizen is a crime.

His creative defense was delusions of citizenship.

Saul Martinez filed a false application for asylum and withholding of removal based on his alleged political opinion. Four years later, he admitted that he lied on the first application, and submitted a new application based on his sexual orientation.

Is it surprising that the immigration judge decided that Martinez lacked credibility? No?

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio can't detain people solely on the suspicion that they're undocumented immigrants, reports Fox News.

"America's toughest sheriff" was appealing a preliminary injunction that a district court judge issued last year.

What do you do if the only exculpatory witness in your client's case is a recently-deported illegal alien?

Start appealing.

Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government may not deport an illegal alien who can provide exculpatory evidence for a criminal defendant, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Curious as to how the Obama administration wants its new prosecutorial discretion directive interpreted in immigration appeals? So is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit halted the deportation of seven appellants pending clarification from the Obama administration about the prosecutorial discretion policy it announced in 2011.

Former President Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony will always be remembered for existential musings on a two-letter word. Years later, cases can still turn on what the meaning of "is" is.

Case in point: This Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals immigration removal case also employs the what-is-is argument.

Juan Gutierrez is a 70-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States sometime between 1969 and 1971. In October 2001, Gutierrez received a Notice to Appear, charging him with being removable as an alien who was present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Gutierrez conceded his removability, but requested registry, cancellation of removal, and voluntary departure, citing his good moral character.

Rent lied to us.

All the singing and dancing about five-hundred-twenty-five-thousand-six-hundred-minutes? Nonsense.

In a case to file under "lies-the-justice-system-perpetuates," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the only way to measure a year for immigration removal procedures is with the inaccurate 365-day calendar.

So how many days are really in a year?

The Ninth Circuit confirmed this week that the past can come back to haunt you, even when it’s been expunged. In a surprising policy shift, the court reversed its equal protection holding in Lujan-Armendariz v. INS so that expungement of a state-law conviction for simple drug possession no longer insulates an alien from deportation.

The court’s opinion in Nunez-Reyes v. Holder affirms a Board of Immigration Appeals decision to deny Flavio Nunez-Reyes’s application for cancellation of removal. Nunez-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the U.S. in 1992, pleaded guilty in California state court to felony and misdemeanor drug charges in 2001. Although the state dismissed the charges after Nunez-Reyes satisfied the terms of his probation, the federal government used the expunged simple drug possession conviction as grounds to charge Nunez-Reyes as removable.

Petition for Review of Removal Order Granted

In Li v. Holder, No. 06-73365, a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, the court granted the petition where 1) there was a lack of substantial evidence to base adverse credibility on the finding that petitioner was not a Christian; and 2) there was a lack of substantial evidence to base adverse credibility on the finding that petitioner was evasive or inconsistent.

Denial of Petition for Review of Moral Turpitude-Based Removal

In Baraket v. Holder, No. 09-0739, a petition for review of the BIA's order pretermitting petitioner's application for cancellation of removal, the court denied the petition where petitioner committed acts between October 2001 and December 2001 that constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, and the BIA therefore properly pretermitted his application for cancellation of removal on the grounds that, within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. section 1229b(a)(2), he had not continuously resided in the U.S. for seven years after his lawful entry in May 1996.