Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a citizen of Peru, petitioned for review of the BIA's reversal of the IJ's grant of his application for withholding of removal. Petitioner contended that the BIA applied the wrong standard when evaluating whether government officials would acquiesce to his torture and that its conclusions were not supported by substantial evidence. The court concluded that the BIA's decision conformed to the willful blindness standard and the court need not remand the case to allow the BIA to correct its analysis. In light of petitioner's waiver of his relocation argument and the court's determination that the State Department's country report and the circumstances of petitioner's past torture supported the BIA's findings, the court held that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that it was not more likely than not that the government would acquiesce to petitioner's torture upon his return to Peru. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal entry after deportation and was sentenced to fifty months in prison. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's calculation of his prison term. The court concluded that the district court committed no legal error by its interpretation of U.S.S.G. 2L1.2. Instead the district court properly calculated the advisory Guidelines range by enhancing defendant's offense level, pursuant to section 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), in that he had been convicted of a drug trafficking felony in Oregon. Therefore, the sentence imposed was reasonable and the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Medina-Campo" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of El Salvador, sought discretionary relief from his removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), Pub. L. No. 105-100, 111, Stat. 2160, 2198. The BIA found petitioner ineligible for relief because he was unable to demonstrate that his 1996 Virginia conviction for assault and battery was not a crime of violence. The court concluded that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996's, 8 U.S.C. 321(c), retroactive application of the revised definition of "aggravated felony" survived petitioner's constitutional challenges. The court also held that the government had demonstrated that petitioner's removability and petitioner had failed to demonstrate that he was eligible for discretionary relief from removal, as afforded by NACARA. Accordingly, the court denied his petitions for review. View "Mondragon v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a permanent resident alien and federal inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action under 8 U.S.C. 1503(a) for a judgment declaring him a United States national. Petitioner has resided in the United States since the age of eleven and has been a permanent resident for almost twenty-five years. Petitioner alleged that he was a United States national because he applied for citizenship, registered for the Selective Service, and declared his permanent allegiance to various United States officials. The court held that these facts failed to allege United States nationality under section 1503(a) and affirmed the dismissal of his action. Petitioner could not state a claim to be a United States national under United States v. Morin because the court must defer to the BIA's contrary, post-Morin interpretation of section 1101(a)(22). View "Patel v. Napolitano" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted for possessing firearms while being illegally or unlawfully in the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charge, contending that section 922(g)(5) violated his rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. The district court denied the motion, holding that section 922(g)(5) was constitutional. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the scope of the Second Amendment did not extend to provide protection to illegal aliens, because illegal aliens were not law-abiding members of the political community and aliens who have entered the United States unlawfully have no more rights under the Second Amendment than do aliens outside of the United States seeking admittance. On defendant's Fifth Amendment challenge, the court concluded that prohibiting aliens, as a class, from possessing firearms was rationally related to Congress' legitimate interest in public safety. View "United States v. Carpio-Leon" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Republic of Angola, sought review of an order by the BIA denying his petition to obtain relief from removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182. The BIA denied petitioner asylum and withholding of removal under the INA because he was a member of, and provided material support to, a terrorist organization. The court held that the BIA did not err in deeming petitioner statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal under the INA's Material Support Bar. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. View "de Almeida Viegas v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA affirming an IJ's grant of a motion by the DHS to pretermit his applications for adjustment of immigration status and for a waiver pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(h). The court held that the district court erred in finding petitioner barred under section 212(h) from obtaining a waiver of inadmissibility and granted the petition for review. View "Leiba v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India, petitioned for review of the BIA's order affirming the IJ's decision that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of persecution on return to India on the basis of his political opinion and thus was not entitled to withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1231, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the determination that petitioner was not entitled to withholding of removal under the INA. Further, because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that petitioner was not more likely than not to face torture if removed to India, the court concluded that the IJ and the Board did not err in finding petitioner ineligible for withholding of removal under the CAT. Finally, petitioner failed to establish that his due process rights were violated by having an incompetent interpreter that provided inadequate translation. View "Singh v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner Jose Barahona, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review of the final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA") which affirmed his ineligibility for a "special rule" cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (the "NACARA"). Petitioner contended that the BIA erred by deeming him ineligible for NACARA relief because he had provided material support to a terrorist organization in the early 1980s by allowing anti-government Salvadoran guerrillas of the so-called "FMLN" (the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Libercion Nacional) the use of the kitchen of his Salvadoran home. Upon review, the Court rejected Petitioner's contentions and denied his petition for review. View "Barahona v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Mirna Del Carmen Gomez, a citizen of El Salvador, pled guilty to unlawful reentry of a deported alien after an aggravated felony conviction. Although she agreed with the statement of facts submitted by the government in support of her guilty plea, Defendant objected to the government's assertion that her prior conviction for child abuse under Maryland law amounted to a crime of violence for purposes of the U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) sentencing enhancement. According to Defendant, because the relevant portion of the statute did not contain a division between forceful and nonforceful conduct, the district court could not use the modified categorical approach to determine that her prior child abuse conviction was a crime of violence. The district court employed the modified categorical approach to determine that Defendant's child abuse conviction constituted a crime of violence and added sixteen levels to her base offense level. Thereafter, the district court calculated her Guidelines range to be forty-one to fifty-one months, but made a downward variance and sentenced her to twenty-four months' imprisonment. Because the Fourth Circuit found that the district court's application of the modified categorical approach to the indivisible provision at issue was in error, it vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Gomez" on Justia Law