Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

In August 2010, Defendant Byron Ventura-Perez pled guilty in Colorado to illegal reentry after having been deported subsequent to an aggravated-felony conviction. Defendant raised two issues on appeal: (1) he contended the district court miscalculated his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) he contended that when the court imposed his sentence, it improperly refused to consider sentencing disparities created by fast-track programs in other districts. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Tenth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence.

This case concerned the BIA's policy for deciding when resident aliens could apply to the Attorney General for relief from deportation under a now-repealed provision of the immigration law. The Court held that the BIA's policy for applying section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(c), in deportation cases was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). The Court concluded that the BIA's comparable-grounds rule was unmoored from the purposes and concerns of the immigration laws. It allowed an irrelevant comparison between statutory provisions to govern a matter of the utmost importance -whether lawful resident aliens with longstanding ties to this country could stay here. And contrary to the Government's protestations, it was not supported by text or practice or cost considerations. Therefore, the BIA's approach could not pass muster under ordinary principles of administrative law.

The Madison County Board of Commissioners filed an appropriation action against Greg and Marcia Bell. The common pleas court entered judgment in favor of the Board. The court of appeals affirmed. The Bells then filed a civil action against various Defendants, including the Board and the common pleas court judge. The common pleas court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. Greg Bell subsequently sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court judge that presided over the earlier action, a magistrate, and certain attorneys and entities, from proceeding in the case. The court of appeals denied Bell's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Bell could prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of prohibition.

Petitioner left Syria because of fears relating to indebtedness and was admitted to the U.S. as a nonimmigrant in 2000. He became acquainted with men involved in the September 11 attacks and later voluntarily provided the FBI with information. In October 2001 the INS issued a Notice to Appear charging petitioner as removable. He sought asylum and withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture and was transferred to FBI custody on a material witness warrant. The IJ granted the application for asylum (8 U.S.C. 1158), withholding of removal (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(A)), and withholding of removal pursuant to the CAT, finding that he belonged to the social group of "hopeless debtors," persecuted in Syria. Three years later, ICE indicated that his application might have been fraudulent and that petitioner might pose a threat to national security. The BIA reopened "sua sponte" and remanded. The district court dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Stay of Removal Proceedings." The Third Circuit reversed concluding that, under these unusual circumstances, the district court has jurisdiction to review the BIA decision to reopen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701.

Petitioner Zhi Wei Pang illegally entered the United States in 1993 from the People's Republic of China. Months after he arrived, he unsuccessfully applied for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed he suffered economic and emotional persecution due to his resistance to Chinese population control policies. But because the economic penalties imposed on Petitioner did not rise to the level of past persecution, the Board of Immigration Appeals recommended Petitioner's removal. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and denied Petitioner's petition for review.

Appellant Gabriela Cordova-Soto petitioned the Tenth Circuit for review of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order reinstating her prior removal order under 8 U.S.C. 1231 (a)(5). Appellant is a native and citizen of Mexico, who entered the United States as a child and became a lawful permanent resident in 1991 at the age of 13. In 2005, DHS initiated removal proceedings against Appellant charging her as removable on three grounds: (1) as an aggravated felon; (2) as an alien convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude; and (3) as an alien convicted of a controlled substance offense. Appellant had three Kansas state-law convictions, including a 2005 conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine for which she was sentenced to a suspended jail term of twenty months and eighteen months' probation. Appellant was found in 2010 in Wichita, Kansas and identified as an alien who had previously been removed. No criminal charges for illegal reentry were lodged against her, but DHS issued a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, advising Appellant that she was subject to removal. Appellant argued to the Tenth Circuit that: (1) her underlying removal order was not lawful; and (2) her reentry into the United States after her previous removal was not illegal. On these bases she maintained that reinstatement of her previous removal order was precluded. Upon review of the DHS's determination and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded Appellant failed to establish that DHS misconstrued the meaning of "reenters the United States illegally" in Sec. 1231 (a)(5): she was removed from the United States in 2005, and she admittedly reentered the country without the Attorney General's authorization shortly thereafter. Because she could not have entered the United States legally at that time, her reentry was illegal and she was therefore subject to reinstatement of her previous removal order. Accordingly, the Court denied Appellant's petition for review.

Mexican national Defendant-Appellant Nicolas Cobos-Chachas pled guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after deportation. At sentencing, the district court varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced him to thirty-eight months' imprisonment, which was three months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. Defendant challenged the length of his sentence as substantively unreasonable in light of the sentencing factors listed in the Guidelines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that "Mr. Cobos-Chachas' own perception that the sentencing factors compel[ed] a more marked variance [did] not rebut the presumption that his below-guideline sentence [was] substantively reasonable." Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Petitioners Mihiretab Teshome Jobira and Beza Teshome Jobira petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review final orders of removal. The Jobiras are natives and citizens of Ethiopia. They claimed to be brother and sister. In September 2006, the Jobiras entered the United States on visitor visas. On the date their visas expired, they applied for asylum and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). According to their applications, the Jobiras were arrested on several occasions in 2005 as a result of their activities organizing fellow high school students in support of the "Coalition for Unity and Democracy" (CUD). They alleged that during their detentions, they were interrogated, held in squalid conditions, and severely beaten or tortured. After hearing the Jobirasâ testimony, an immigration judge issued an oral decision denying relief and granting voluntary departure. The judge concluded the Jobirasâ story had not proven credible for a number of reasons. The Jobiras appealed the judge's denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). A single member of the BIA dismissed their appeal. The Tenth Circuit concluded that the Jobiras failed to meet the persecution standards for asylum, and necessarily failed to satisfy the higher standards required for restriction on removal under the immigration laws or relief under the CAT. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the BIA's and immigration judge's decisions.

Israeli citizens Arturas Bakanovas, Edita Bakanovas, and their daughter, Karolina Bakanovas, sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied their motion to reopen. In 1990 Arturas and Edita Bakanovas emigrated from Lithuania to Israel and became Israeli citizens. In 1991 they entered the United States on visitor visas and, after they overstayed their visas and the Immigration and Nationalization Service issued orders to show cause why they should not be deported, Arturas applied for asylum. The asylum application stated that Arturas had suffered persecution in Israel because of his Catholic faith and Lithuanian origin, that Edita had suffered persecution in Lithuania because of her Jewish faith, and that they both suffered persecution in Israel because of their interfaith marriage. In 1994 an immigration judge denied the Bakanovases asylum and withholding of deportation but granted their request for voluntary departure, with an alternate order of deportation to Israel or Lithuania if they remained in the United States after the voluntary-departure deadline. In October 2000 the BIA affirmed the order, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Bakanovases did not leave the United States, and in January 2007 they were arrested on immigration charges and released on bond. They then met with their current attorney, who informed them in April 2007 of the availability of relief under the Convention Against Torture. In March 2010, almost three years later, they filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, which the BIA denied. They petitioned the Tenth Circuit to review that decision. Because the denial of a motion to reopen is "a final, separately appealable order," the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the case. The Court dismissed Petitioners' appeal.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus and his complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. Plaintiff's complaint requested the district court to mandamus the defendants (1) to determine as a matter of law that plaintiff had been "admitted" to the United States for purposes of his application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. 1255(a) and (2) to re-open and re-adjudicate plaintiff's application for adjustment of status, which was previously denied. The court held that plaintiff could not satisfy the requirements for mandamus relief and that he had not demonstrated that he lacked an adequate remedy for obtaining relief. In fact, plaintiff had sued under the APA, which provided an adequate remedy. Therefore, the court held that because plaintiff had an adequate remedy available to him, the district court properly dismissed his request for mandamus relief. The court also held that the plain language of section 1255(a) limited eligibility for status adjustment to an alien who had been inspected and admitted or paroled. That an alien with Temporary Protected Status had lawful status as a nonimmigrant for purposes of adjusting his status did not change section 1255(a)'s threshold requirement that he was eligible for adjustment of status only if he was initially inspected and admitted or paroled. Accordingly, the court held that the district court's ruling was consistent with the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, even if the statutory language was ambiguous, the court deferred to the Department of Homeland Security's consistent and well-reasoned interpretation of the interplay between section 1255(a) and section 1254a(f)(4). Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition and complaint.