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

Petitioner, born in the Dominican Republic, lived in the U.S. from 1982 until 2009, when DHS charged him as removable under section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien present without being admitted or paroled, and under sections 212(a)(2)(A)(i) and (a)(2)(B) as an alien convicted of an offense relating to a controlled substance and an alien convicted of two or more offenses involving crimes of moral turpitude. He admitted the factual allegations was found removable, but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection. He claimed that, because of his assistance to the Drug Enforcement Agency, he would be targeted for violence if returned to the Dominican Republic. The immigration judge denied the applications. The BIA affirmed and 21 days later, petitioner was removed. The BIA denied a motion to reconsider, citing lack of jurisdiction resulting from removal (8 C.F.R.1003.2(d)).The Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the post-departure bar is inconsistent with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)(A), (7)(A), which grants an alien the right to file one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen without any geographic limitation on that right.

Husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, came to the U.S. without valid documents in 1992 and 1996. They have three American-born children (ages five, ten, and eleven). In 1999, they traveled to Mexico to attend the funeral of husband's father. While there, wife, injured and pregnant, was restricted to bed rest and directed not to travel. They returned to the U.S. after 176 days. Religious worker visa applications were denied and the government instituted removal proceedings. In 2008, the couple applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1), claiming continuous physical presence for 10 years, absence of any criminal statutory bars, and exceptional and extremely unusual hardship on their children. An immigration judge denied the applications and granted voluntary departure. The BIA affirmed. The Third Circuit denied review. The couple failed to maintain continuous presence; intent to return is irrelevant--there is no scienter requirement and non-permanent resident aliens and permanent resident aliens seeking naturalization are not similarly situated groups for equal protection purposes. Neither the unratified American Convention on Human Rights nor the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man is enforceable domestically.

Petitioner, a citizen of Ecuador, entered the U.S. illegally in 1991; she was granted voluntary departure in 1995, but did not depart until 1999. She illegally re-entered in 2000 and married a citizen. Using a different alien registration number, she applied for adjustment of status. She also sought to re-apply for admission under her original number. The Department began removal proceedings. The immigration found that her inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) rendered her statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status and ordered removal to Ecuador. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Third Circuit denied a petition for review. the BIA correctly concluded petitioner was inadmissible and removeable and that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction to consider her "nunc pro tunc" request for consent to reapply for admission pursuant to sect. 1182.

Plaintiffs, lawful permanent residents taken into custody based on past convictions, (8 U.S.C. 1182) sought a declaratory judgment that continued detention of putative class members, without bond hearings, violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause. The District Court denied class certification and dismissed the class complaint, based on 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1), which precludes class actions that seek to "enjoin or restrain the operation of" several immigration statutes. The Third Circuit reversed. The word "restrain" does not encompass classwide declaratory relief.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv), precludes withholding of removal if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States. In November 2003, the Government of Uzbekistan requested the extradition of the petitioners, asserting they participated in seeking the forced overthrow of the Republic and the establishment on its territory of a religious extremist Islamic fundamental state. Immigration judges concluded that the extradition request would be given no weight, coming from a government with a history of persecution and torture. On remand from the Third Circuit, the Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioners are a danger to national security and ineligible for withholding of removal, but granted deferral of removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The Third Circuit held that petitioners are entitled to withholding of removal as a matter of law; the determination that petitioners are a danger to national security was not supported by substantial evidence and there is no question that they will be persecuted and tortured on religious and political grounds if returned.

After pleading guilty to illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. 1326) the defendants challenged their sentences, claiming that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated as a result of the Department of Justice "fast-track" programs that allow a departure from sentencing guidelines in return for a guilty plea and waiver of right of appeal. Such programs have been implemented in several areas, but not in any district within the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that the program is rationally related to, among others, the goals of allocating prosecutorial resources and enforcing the immigration laws. The sentences imposed on the defendants were reasonable.

The plaintiffs were subjected to raids as part of "Operation Return to Sender," implemented to apprehend fugitive aliens. The complaint included "Bivens" claims: unreasonable home entries, unreasonable searches; unreasonable seizures, all in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a Fourth Amendment claim for excessive force by four individuals; a Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim involving three individuals; and a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim by one individual. The district court denied a motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit reversed on qualified immunity grounds. The plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants, high-level federal Immigration enforcement supervisors, participated in the raids, adopted an unconstitutional policy, or had legally sufficient notice of the unconstitutional conduct of subordinates. They did not identify what defendants should have done differently with respect to training or other matters, that would have prevented the unconstitutional conduct. The plaintiffs may pursue official capacity claims for injunctive relief against any further intimidation or unlawful entry. The court did not address individual capacity claims for damages against the lower-ranking agents

Petitioner, a citizen of Israel, twice overstayed visitors' visas, then sought an adjustment of status based on an employer's approved petition for an alien worker. The application was denied because he refused to submit an affidavit detailing past attempts to enter and because he had been arrested attempting to smuggle another alien into this country. He was deemed inadmissible. His request to cancel removal was denied. The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Third Circuit rejected appeals. Removal may be cancelled if an inadmissible alien shows that he has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of application (8 U.S.C. 1229b). The petitioner's presence ended when he was refused readmission in 1999, after a short trip to Canada; his visa was cancelled because of his prior arrest. He signed a withdrawal of application for admission at that time, then obtained a passport under a new name and evaded immigration authorities in returning, indicating his awareness that he would not be allowed to return.

In 1996 the petitioner, an Indian citizen charged as deportable, posted bond and traveled from Texas to Wisconsin. An attorney, hired by his family, had the matter transferred to New Jersey, but later moved to withdraw on the ground that he had not seen or heard from the client. The motion was denied, the petitioner was ordered deported in absentia, and notice was served on the attorney. In 2009 the petitioner's motion to reopen was denied. The Third Circuit denied an appeal, noting that the petitioner was not entitled to actual notice and had contributed to his failure to receive actual notice through his attorney of record.

Petitioner, a Chinese citizen, was charged with fraudulent attempt to enter the United States under a false identity in 2002 and sought asylum to avoid removal. The Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected the petition, but reopened after the petitioner gave birth to two daughters in the United States. On remand, the immigration judge heard contradictory testimony and denied the petition, concluding that the Chinese government does not sterilize or fine citizens who give birth to two or more children abroad. The BIA rejected an appeal, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to asylum under the 2005 REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b). The Third Circuit denied review, holding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The BIA's error in conducting de novo review was harmless.