Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant, an inmate in Maryland, filed a mandamus petition seeking to compel the USCIS to grant him a hearing to review the denial of his application for naturalization. The court rejected appellant's claim that he qualifies for in forma pauperis (IFP) status under the imminent danger exception to the three strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). In this case, appellant's allegations were insufficient to establish imminent danger where the beatings, which took place while appellant was in the general prison population, do not indicate that he continued to face imminent danger at the time he filed his complaint. Further, appellant makes no allegation that he suffered any beatings or received specific threats while in protective custody. The court also rejected appellant's claim that the three-strikes rule is unconstitutional as applied to his case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court, denying appellant IFP status. View "Asemani v. USCIS" on Justia Law

Fazio, a permanent resident alien, was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Fazio pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of conspiring to distribute more than 200 grams but fewer than 300 grams of cocaine, waiving the right to take a direct appeal from his conviction or sentence, except if the government appealed from the sentence or the sentence exceeded the applicable statutory limits or unreasonably exceeded the Sentencing Guidelines range. Fazio waived the right to move to vacate sentence (28 U.S.C. 2255) and the right to file any other collateral proceeding attacking his conviction or sentence. The plea agreement stated: Fazio recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status … no one, including his own attorney or the district court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. The court reviewed the waiver in detail at the hearing. The Third Circuit affirmed denial of Fazio’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, in which he argued that counsel was ineffective in failing to warn Fazio properly of the immigration consequences of his plea, as required by the Supreme Court in Padilla v. Kentucky, 2010. View "United States v. Fazio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a naturalized United States citizen, alleged that, in 2009, she was unlawfully detained in violation of her Fourth And Fifth Amendment rights when she was imprisoned for 24 hours pursuant to an immigration detainer so that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could investigate her immigration status. Plaintiff named as defendants three ICE agents - defendants Edward Donaghy, Bruce Chadbourne, and David Riccio. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and to dismiss, all on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court denied Defendants’ motions. The First Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim against Donaghy on the ground that the law was clearly established in 2009 that an ICE agent was required to have probable cause before issuing a detainer; (2) dismissed Donaghy’s appeal on his Fourth Amendment argument regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the detainer and his Fifth Amendment equal protection argument for want of jurisdiction because these arguments did not present pure issues of law; and (3) affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on Morales’s Fourth Amendment supervisory liability claim against Chadbourne and Riccio, as Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that Chadbourne and Riccio violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. View "Morales v. Chadbourne" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings relating to his claim of derivative citizenship. Under the statute in effect when petitioner was born - the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the 1952 Act) - a child born abroad to an unwed citizen mother and non‐citizen father has citizenship at birth so long as the mother was present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year at some point prior to the child’s birth. A child born abroad to an unwed citizen father and non‐citizen mother has citizenship at birth only if the father was present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the child’s birth for a period or periods totaling at least ten years, with at least five of those years occurring after the age of fourteen. In this case, petitioner's father satisfied the requirements for transmitting citizenship applicable to unwed mothers but not the more stringent requirements applicable to unwed mothers. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court concluded that the gender‐based distinction at the heart of the 1952 Act’s physical presence requirements is not substantially related to the achievement of a permissible, non‐stereotype‐based objective. The court saw no reason that unwed fathers need more time than unwed mothers in the United States prior to their child’s birth in order to assimilate the values that the statute seeks to ensure are passed on to citizen children born abroad. Conforming the immigration laws Congress enacted with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, the court concluded that petitioner is a citizen as of his birth. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Morales-Santana v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of a felony requiring his removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed an order that Petitioner be removed. Petitioner petitioned for review, arguing that because Padilla v. Kentucky described deportation as a “penalty,” his removal violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment or related constitutional protections unless a court conducted an individual assessment to determine whether his order of removal was a proportional punishment relative to his underlying criminal conviction. The First Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that Padilla has not signaled a break from long-settled law that removal operates simply as “a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want,” not as a punishment within the meaning of the Constitution intended to acutely sanction a noncitizen for his underlying criminal conviction. View "Hinds v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the BIA's decision dismissing her appeal from an IJ's order of removal. At issue is the IJ's denial of petitioner's motion to suppress certain evidence and to terminate the removal proceeding. The court held that the exclusionary rule applies to egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment. The court joined the Second, Third, and Eighth Circuits and applied a totality of the circumstances test to determine the egregiousness standard. The court rejected petitioner's claim that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the search warrant at issue was invalid because it identified the premises as single-family home as oppose to a multi-unit dwelling. The court rejected petitioner's alternative arguments, concluding that petitioner's claims do not make out a constitutional violation, let alone an egregious one. The court held, however, that the nighttime execution of a daytime warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, absent consent or exigent circumstances. In this case, the 5:00 a.m. search of the premises violated the Fourth Amendment. The court held that, although the nighttime execution of the daytime warrant violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights, such violation was not egregious under the totality of the circumstances. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims and denied the petition for review. View "Yanez-Marquez v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Alvarez, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. at a young age without inspection and later adjusted to lawful permanent resident status. He married a U.S. citizen, but is now divorced; he has sons who are citizens. In 2000, while serving in the U.S. Army, he was convicted by a General Court-Martial of giving false official statements (10 U.S.C. 907), sodomy (10 U.S.C. 925), and violating the general article (10 U.S.C. 934). He served 13 months and was released in 2002. ICE agents arrested him in 2012, charging him as removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) for his conviction on an aggravated felony. He was ordered detained without bond under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). The district court denied his petition for habeas corpus. The Third Circuit reversed with instructions that Alvarez must be afforded a prompt bond hearing. Beginning sometime after the six-month time-frame considered by the Supreme Court in Demore, the burdens to Alvarez’s liberties outweighed any justification for using presumptions to detain him without bond to further the goals of the statute. The statute’s goals would not have been, and will not be undermined by requiring the government to produce individualized evidence that Alvarez’s continued detention was or is necessary. View "Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, a member of a prominent political family allegedly involved in the Rwandan genocide, was convicted of two counts of procuring citizenship illegally by making false statements to the government. Specifically, the jury found that Defendant misrepresented her political affiliations and her participation in the genocide. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (2) any error in the court’s evidentiary rulings was harmless given the vast array of evidence against Defendant; (3) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) Defendant’s 120-month sentence was reasonable. View "United States v. Munyenyezi" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant, a native of Ethiopia, pleaded guilty to petit larceny. At no time did Appellant’s court-appointed attorney advise Appellant of the collateral consequences of the plea and sentence upon his immigration status. Appellant was subsequently informed that he was subject to removal as a result of his conviction. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. The circuit court sustained the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss the petition, concluding that Appellant was not prejudiced from his counsel’s failure to advise him of the adverse consequences on his immigration status of accepting the plea agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard for determining whether prejudice resulted from the attorney’s failure to advise Appellant of the negative consequences of accepting the plea agreement. View "Zemene v. Clarke" on Justia Law

In 2002, Appellant, a Mexican native and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to felony theft. Eight years later, deportation proceedings were initiated against Appellant, in part due to Appellant’s 2002 felony theft conviction. Appellant filed a petition asking the district court to vacate his 2002 plea under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) or, alternatively, through a writ of coram nobis. In his petition, Appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective during the plea process by failing to disclose the possible immigration consequences related to his plea. The district court dismissed Appellant’s petition and writ of coram nobis, concluding (1) Appellant’s petition was time barred by the PCRA, and (2) Appellant was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel, as Appellant knew or should have known that there were potential immigration consequences related to his plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to preserve his argument that his attorney affirmatively misrepresented the immigration consequences of his plea; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s petition for a writ of coram nobis, as Appellant had a remedy available to him through the PCRA. View "Oseguera v. State" on Justia Law