Denial of Cancellation of Removal, and Criminal and Immigration Matters - U.S. Second Circuit
U.S. Second Circuit - The FindLaw 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Denial of Cancellation of Removal, and Criminal and Immigration Matters

Argueta v. Holder, No. 09-4021, concerned a petition for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the judgment of the immigration judge denying petitioner's application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.  The court denied the petition on the ground that the court found nothing in the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions that temporally limited the discretionary factors the agency may consider in deciding whether to grant cancellation of removal to an applicant who was statutorily eligible for that relief.

In Matthews v. US, No. 09-0321, the court affirmed defendant's convictions for racketeering, drug-related murder, and the use of a firearm, holding that defendant's contention that he was unconstitutionally charged by information with a crime that could expose him to capital punishment, in violation of his Fifth Amendment right to indictment by a grand jury for a capital offense, failed because, while drug-related murder can be punishable by death if certain aggravating circumstances are specified in the charging instrument, no such aggravating factors were specified in the information.

In US v. Shyne, No. 08-0865, the court affirmed defendants' convictions for criminal conspiracies to commit bank fraud and launder money by stealing, altering or counterfeiting checks and depositing the checks into bank accounts, holding that the district court properly denied defendants' application to require government production of all written or recorded statements, including comprehensive notes from proffer sessions, of coconspirators who would not be testifying at trial but whose statements the government intended to introduce at trial as statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy, because the disclosure requirements of the Jencks Act did not apply to non-testifying declarants.

Related Resources