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

Singh, born in Jamaica, has been a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. since 1975, married a U.S. citizen and raised three children. In operating a construction firm that bid on public works projects as a Minority Business Enterprise, Singh accepted kickbacks for falsely certifying that his business was serving as a subcontractor on government projects when, in fact, another did the work. When the company filed for bankruptcy in 2005, the scheme came to light. Singh was charged with failing to disclose all of the company’s accounts receivable on the bankruptcy petition, 18 U.S.C. 152(3). Singh pled guilty and agreed to restitution in the amount of $54,418.08. He was sentenced to 10 months. DHS initiated removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The Immigration Judge entered an order of removal, which the BIA affirmed, finding that conviction under 152(3) categorically involves fraud and that the restitution order established that the offense caused loss to the trustee exceeding $10,000. The Third Circuit vacated, holding that the statute requires actual, not merely intended, loss. The court rejected an argument that 152(3) is a perjury offense that must meet the requirements for perjury-based aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C 1101(a)(43)(S).View "Singh v. Atty Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Panama and a citizen of Spain, entered the U.S. as a non-immigrant visitor in 1998. In 2000 he married a U.S. citizen. His status was adjusted to conditional lawful permanent resident. In 2004, petitioner and his wife appeared together at an interview in support of his I-751 petition to remove conditions on residence; petitioner affirmed, under oath, that he did not have children. After the two divorced, petitioner amended the birth certificates of children born to another woman during his marriage, to reflect that he was their father. In 2006, petitioner filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization listing the two as his children. USCIS determined that petitioner had provided false testimony during the 2004 interview and denied his petition on grounds that he lacked the requisite good moral character. In 2009 USCIS initiated removal. The district court ruled in favor of the government, noting uncontradicted evidence that petitioner, under penalty of perjury, gave false evidence in order to receive a benefit in an immigration proceeding. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding there was no material issue of fact. View "Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

In 1998, petitioner, a citizen of Jamaica and a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., was convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than 50 grams of "crack" cocaine, 21 U.S.C. 846 and sentenced to 168 months imprisonment, After his release from prison, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a warrant and took petitioner into custody. He has been incarcerated by ICE since March, 2008 without a bond hearing. The district court denied habeas corpus. The Third Circuit reversed. Under the pre-removal statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), ICE can detain any alien pending a decision in removal proceedings and can release on bond any alien not otherwise ineligible for such release. Section 1226 provides for mandatory detention of aliens who are removable on account of commission of enumerated offenses, including aggravated felonies such as petitioner's. Once there is an order of removal, detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231(a), under which ICE must remove the alien within 90 days. Evaluating the situation under section 1226, the court determined that petitioner had been detained for longer than "reasonable." View "Leslie v. Att'y Gen. of United States" on Justia Law

In 2000, petitioner, a 12-year-old citizen of Argentina, entered the U.S. under the visa waiver program, 8 U.S.C. 1189(a). In 2011, ICE agents, executing an arrest warrant for her brother, took petitioner into custody and scheduled removal without an appearance before an immigration judge, based on petitioner remaining for more than the 90 days permitted by the vwp. She argued that the removal order was invalid because she was a minor when she entered this country and could not waive any procedural rights and that she did not receive procedural protections to which she would have been entitled absent such a waiver. The Third Circuit denied her appeal, finding no prejudice resulting from enforcement of the allegedly-defective waiver. Petitioner would not have been allowed to enter without signing the waiver; if she had been of majority age and had knowingly and voluntarily had executed the waiver, she would not have been entitled to the procedural protections normally afforded to an alien prior to removal. View "Vera v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

The tenant moved into an apartment in 2004. The building later came under management by defendants. In 2008 tenant filed suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962, alleging that defendants conspired to harbor illegal aliens and to encourage or induce illegal aliens to reside in the U.S. in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). He claimed that the apartment complex fell into disrepair and that criminal activity went unreported, causing injury to his leasehold property. The district court dismissed. The Third Circuit affirmed. The "harboring" claim was properly dismissed; the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the conduct tended to substantially facilitate an alien's remaining in the U.S. illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting the unlawful presence. With respect to the "inducing" claim, the court stated that it could not imagine that Congress contemplated that landlords and hotel and motel operators would be responsible for making complex legal determinations about who is permitted to live in this country, much less that they would be criminalized for an error in so doing.View "Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Props., Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner has lived in the U.S. since entering on a visitor’s visa in 1980, when he was 20 years old. His wife became a U.S. citizen by naturalization in 1997 and they have a child, born in New Jersey in 1990. In 2006, petitioner filed an application to adjust his status to permanent residence based on his marriage. He disclosed a 2004 arrest for propositioning an undercover officer for prostitution, which resulted in a plea of guilty to disorderly conduct. DHS concluded, based on the arrest report, that he had falsely claimed to be from Puerto Rico rather than Costa Rica at the time of arrest, triggering a bar to admissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii). In 2007, DHS initiated removal proceedings. An immigration judge found him inadmissible and the BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded. The statute applies to false citizenship claims made in conjunction with applications for private employment or for public services and benefits.View "Castro v. Attorney Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Liberia, was admitted as a visitor in 1980. In, 1983, he became a lawful permanent resident. In 1988, he pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct. In 1995, Minnesota enacted a predatory offender registration statute. Petitioner initially complied, but in 1998, pled guilty to failing to register. In 2009, DHS began removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after his date of admission and alleging that his 1998 conviction, coupled with his 1988 conviction, made him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme. Several months later, petitioner asserted for the first time that he was admitted in 1980, not 1983, but did not support his assertion with any evidence. The IJ ordered him removed. The BIA dismissed. The Third Circuit vacated, reversing the treatment of petitioner's conviction under the predatory offender registration statute. The court remanded with instructions to allow him to supplement the record to show that he was legally admitted in 1980 and to enter an order that he is not removable. View "Totimeh v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

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.View "Chehazeh v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law

Petitioners, citizens of Mexico, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1993 and 1998, respectively. Since 2000, husband has been seeking employment-based permanent residency. An individual who would not ordinarily qualify for lawful permanent residency because he entered without inspection, may apply as the beneficiary of a labor certification application or a visa petition filed on or before April 30, 2001, 8 U.S.C. 1255(i). According to the court, petitioners' former attorney provided incompetent, and at times ethically questionable, representation throughout the visa petition process, missing filing deadlines and sending associates to hearings without adequate information about the case, so that an IJ granted voluntary departure and the BIA affirmed denial of a motion to reopen. The Third Circuit denied review. The Due Process Clause does not guarantee an alien effective assistance of counsel in preparing, filing, and appealing a labor certification application and a visa petition before the start of removal proceedings. By the time removal proceedings began, petitioners had accrued more than one year of unlawful presence and would have been ordered removed regardless of counsel's actions.View "Contreras v. Attorney Gen. of U.S." on Justia Law

From 1996 until 2003, petitioner, a Columbian, laundered money for Colombian drug traffickers. He was arrested and agreed to cooperate with the FBI. Conviction and sentencing were deferred. He worked with the FBI from 2003 to 2007. In 2007, petitioner was arrested in Colombia for failure to pay a fine years earlier. He paid the fine, but remained in jail for 22 days. He claims that his arrest was to facilitate his murder by the paramilitary group targeted by his FBI work. When he returned to the U.S. he was arrested because FBI agents believed he was involved in money laundering outside of his cooperation. Petitioner pled guilty based on the 1999 transfers. DHS charged him as removable. An IJ and the BIA denied his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The Third Circuit remanded. The BIA must consider that an applicant can establish governmental acquiescence even if the government opposes the paramilitary organization that is engaged in torturous acts. The BIA must also consider that country conditions can, by themselves, constitute grounds for determining that an applicant would more likely than not be subjected to torture upon return to the country of removal. View "Pieschacon-Villegas v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S." on Justia Law