Justia U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Sunday, a citizen of Nigeria, was admitted to the U.S. in 1995 with permission to remain for a year. He overstayed and, in 2013, was charged as removable for overstaying and for committing certain crimes. An IJ held Sunday was removable based on his overstaying and on a bail jumping conviction. To avoid removal, Sunday applied for a U visa and petitioned USCIS for a waiver of inadmissibility, which was denied based on his criminal record. Sunday then applied for a waiver of inadmissibility from an IJ, under the Department of Justice, who determined that she lacked jurisdiction to consider Sunday’s request. The BIA affirmed, concluding that waivers regarding U visas are exclusively within the authority of USCIS, under the Department of Homeland Security, and cannot be granted by an IJ, and declining to consider a claim that removal constituted unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review, noting that the Supreme Court has consistently held that removal is not punishment. View "Sunday v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

In 1984, during the crackdown on the Solidarity movement in Poland, Koszelnik traveled to the U.S. on a nonimmigrant tourist visa, then applied for political asylum. He was assigned an “A-number.” Koszelnik’s asylum application was denied and deportation proceedings were initiated. An IJ denied his application for relief from deportation and granted him voluntary departure. Koszelnik remained in the U.S. The voluntary departure order became a final deportation order. After residing in the U.S. for approximately 10 years, Koszelnik applied for a diversity visa through the lottery program. Koszelnik failed to include his A-number on his application and incorrectly answered questions about deportation proceedings. Unaware of the prior deportation proceedings, the INS issued Koszelnik a new A-number and, in 1995, granted him permanent resident status. Under 8 U.S.C. 1256(a), despite the error, the statute of limitations for re-examining that status adjustment lapsed after five years, in 2000.. In 2012, Koszelnik applied for naturalization, again failing to provide his original A-number and incorrectly answering questions about removal. The government discovered its earlier error and denied his application, finding that failure to disclose his prior removal order and his original A-number meant that he had failed to demonstrate that he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. 1429 and that he was ineligible for naturalization. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the government: Koszelnik failed to meet his burden of showing that he was lawfully admitted and was therefore not eligible for naturalization. View "Koszelnik v. Sec'y, Dept. of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

Saliba obtained U.S. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 1992 by providing falsified documents indicating that he was a citizen of Lebanon. Saliba was a citizen of Syria, a country whose citizens at that time were not eligible for TPS. In 2001, Saliba was able to adjust his status to that of a legal permanent resident, although his fraudulent procurement of TPS should have rendered him statutorily “inadmissible” under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i). When Saliba applied for naturalization in 2006, USCIS discovered the fraud and denied his application for naturalization, stating that Saliba’s apparent fraud precluded a finding that he had been “lawfully admitted” as a permanent resident as required for naturalization under 8 U.S.C. 1427(a). The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting Saliba's argument that his decision to submit falsified Lebanese documents was involuntary and made under duress, due to his fear of the war-time conditions plaguing the Middle East at the time . Saliba’s fraudulent procurement of TPS in 1992 made him inadmissible for Legal Permanent Resident status, and, because he had not been “lawfully admitted” for permanent residence, he cannot be naturalized. View "Saliba v. Att'y Gen. of United States" on Justia Law

Bedolla illegally entered the U.S. in 1991; he traveled to Mexico and re-entered at least once since then. In 2012, he was arrested for failure to appear on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was placed in removal proceedings, 28 U.S.C. 1229a, as an alien present without being admitted or paroled. His application for adjustment of status was rejected because Bedolla had departed and reentered without inspection after accruing more than one year of unlawful presence in the U.S., 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I). Before a scheduled hearing date, Bedolla pleaded guilty to possession with intent to manufacture or deliver cocaine. DHS placed Bedolla in expedited administrative removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1228(b). The unsigned Certificate of Service accompanying the notice did not indicate the date or manner of attempted service, but indicated that Bedolla refused to acknowledge receipt. The period for response elapsed without response. A Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) was signed. Bedolla timely filed a petition for review of the FARO. The Immigration Judge terminated the removal proceeding. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review, rejecting claims of due process violations and that a FARO was inappropriate because Bedolla was not convicted of an “aggravated felony.” View "Bedolla-Avila v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Ordonez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2014 and was detained. She claims that she expressed fear of returning to Guatemala because of abuse she had suffered there. The Department of Homeland Security removed her, but less than two months later, Ordonez reentered with the youngest of her three sons, Gonzalez, then six years old. Border Patrol detained them. DHS initiated proceedings to restore the prior order of removal and served Gonzalez with notice under 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). While proceedings were pending, Ordonez sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, based on her alleged fear of abusive conduct by her former boyfriend. Gonzalez applied for derivative relief. An IJ and the BIA denied relief. While a petition was pending in the Third Circuit, the BIA granted a joint motion to reopen and reissued its decisions and orders without change. Ordonez did not file a petition for review in of the reissued decisions and orders. The Third Circuit held that, because the reissued decisions and orders did not alter the challenged decisions and orders it had jurisdiction over the petition, but denied that petition on the merits. View "Ordonez-Tevalan v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Frias-Camilo, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 2006. In 2013, he entered a plea of guilty in Pennsylvania state court to conspiracy to possess a controlled substance, cocaine. He was originally sentenced to a 12-month period of probation, but, 16 months later, the court amended his sentence and imposed a sentence of “guilty without further penalty,” pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. 9723.2, vacating several earlier-imposed punitive aspects of Frias-Camilo’s sentence. DHS charged removability under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and an immigration judge rejected Frias-Camilo's claims. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review, upholding the BIA’s determination that Frias-Camilo was removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal because he had not demonstrated his physical presence in the U.S. for a period of seven years. A “formal judgment of guilt” was entered against Frias-Camilo, establishing his “conviction” as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A). View "Frias-Camilo v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Gourzong, a native of Jamaica, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1983. In 1993, having joined the U.S. military, he was convicted by a special court-martial at Camp Pendelton of willfully disobeying a lawful order, 10 U.S.C. 890(2), and “commit[ing] an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years,” 10 U.S.C. 920. Gourzong was represented by counsel and pleaded guilty. He received a sentence of six months confinement, loss of pay, and bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority suspended part of the confinement and withheld executing the bad-conduct discharge until after appellate review procedures, 10 U.S.C. 871(c). An IJ found Gourzong removable, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The BIA affirmed, rejecting his argument that convictions by special courts-martial categorically fall outside the definition in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A): “‘conviction’ means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court.” Although it is possible that a special court-martial can convene without a legally trained judge presiding, their convictions generally qualify as convictions under the Act. The Third Circuit agreed and, therefore, concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Gourzong’s appeal. View "Gourzong v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Cen, a Chinese national, was 19 when her mother married a U.S. citizen in China. After obtaining her K-4 visa and moving to the U.S. with her mother, Cen sought to adjust her status; her stepfather filed an I- 130 petition on her behalf. Cen’s application was denied because Cen was 19 when her mother married and could not be deemed her stepfather’s “child” under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B). After becoming a lawful permanent resident, Cen’s mother filed an I-130 petition on Cen’s behalf, which was approved. Cen again applied for adjustment of status. She was denied because the Regulation specifies that a K-4 child’s I-130 petition must be filed by “the same citizen who petitioned for the alien’s parent’s K-3 status,” i.e., the U.S. stepparent. 8 C.F.R. 245.1(i). The government opened removal proceedings against her for overstaying her original K-4 visa. The BIA upheld an IJ’s determination that Cen was not entitled to relief. The Third Circuit reversed, stating that immigration laws may be labyrinthine, but should not “offer older K- 4 children nothing more than a legal dead end.” The court joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that 8 C.F.R. 245.1(i) is invalid because it “essentially reverses the eligibility structure set out by Congress.” View "Cen v. Attorney General of the United States" on Justia Law

Orozco-Velasquez, a Guatemalan citizen, arrived in the U.S. in 1998-1999 without being admitted or paroled. In 2008, he was served with a notice to appear (NTA) before an IJ, noting that the date and time of removal proceedings were “to be set.” In 2010, he received another NTA, sent to correct the address. Five days later, April 12, 2010, he was served with a Notice announcing the date and time of removal proceedings. On May 14, 2010, Orozco-Velasquez sought cancellation of removal on the ground that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his mother, and moved to terminate removal proceedings, arguing that the 2010 NTA effectively superseded the 2008 NTA, so that he did not receive proper notice until after he had resided in the U.S. for a continuous ten-year period, 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(1)(G)(i). The IJ ordered him removed. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Third Circuit vacated. In requiring that an “alien [be] served a notice to appear under section 1229(a)” to suspend his accrual of continuous residency, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1) compels government compliance with each of section 1229(a)(1)’s NTA requirements. The government may amend and supplement its initial NTA; but to cut off an alien’s eligibility for cancellation of removal, it must do so within the 10 years of continuous residence. View "Orozco-Velasquez v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Singh, a citizen of India, was granted asylum in 1993, and adjusted to lawful permanent resident status in 1994. In 2000, Singh was convicted of conspiracy to counterfeit passports, counterfeiting and using visas, and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371; unlawful possession of forged, counterfeited, altered, and falsely-made non-immigrant U.S. visas, 18 U.S.C. 1546. Singh departed the U.S. and re-entered in 2003. In 2009, he applied for admission as a lawful permanent resident. He was instead detained and served with a notice of removal charging him as inadmissible because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude: his 2000 counterfeiting conviction. Singh appeared before the Immigration Court, acknowledged proper service, admitted all of the factual allegations, and conceded the sole charge of removability. Singh sought cancellation of removal, and indicated that he would not be seeking any alternative forms of relief. The IJ denied Singh’s application because Singh had not accrued the requisite seven years of continuous residence required by 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a). The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. Singh’s continuous residency clock stopped in 2000 when he committed his crime involving moral turpitude and could never re-start. View "Singh v. Attorney Gen., United States" on Justia Law