Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Budiyanto Juned, a native and citizen of Indonesia, appealed a Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision that denied his applications for asylum and restriction on removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner came to the United States on a visitor's visa in 1994 and remained after the visa expired. Petitioner petitioned for asylum and restriction on removal on the basis of his political opinion. The BIA affirmed an immigration judge's (IJ) determination that Petitioner was not eligible for asylum because his application was not timely filed and that he did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to except himself from the filing deadline. Furthermore, the BIA determined that Petitioner's proffered incidents of mistreatment in his home country did not amount to persecution, nor the likelihood he would be persecuted in the future. Upon review of the BIA record, the Tenth Circuit dismissed Petitioner's asylum claim due to the court's lack of jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the BIA's determination as to all other aspects of Petitioner's claim.

Following an anonymous tip, the FBI conducted surveillance of defendant and observed that he regularly transported about four people back and forth between his home and his restaurant. A consent search of the home revealed three people who were illegally present in the U.S. and a make-shift dormitory in the basement and garage. Defendant was convicted of two counts of illegally harboring or shielding illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)) and sentenced to 15 months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $10,000 in fines and forfeit his house. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court rejected a motion to vacate (28 U.S.C. 2255), arguing ineffective counsel. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning proposal of an incorrect jury instruction; failure to object to video-taped testimony of prosecution witnesses; failure to ensure that a language barrier did not prevent communicating with defendant; and preventing defendant from testifying on his own behalf.

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 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

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and various business and civil rights organizations (collectively, "Chamber") filed a federal preenforcement suit against those charged with administering the Legal Arizona Workers Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 23-211, 212, 212.01, which provided that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employed unauthorized aliens could be, and in certain circumstances, must be, suspended or revoked. The law also required that all Arizona employers use E-Verify, an internet-based system employers could use to check the work authorization status of employees. At issue was whether federal immigration law preempted those provisions of Arizona law. The Court held that Arizona's licensing law fell within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states and therefore, was not expressly preempted where the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(2), prohibited states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on those who employed unauthorized aliens but preserved state authority to impose sanctions through licensing and similar laws. The court also held that Arizona's requirement that employers use E-Verify did not conflict with the federal scheme and in no way obstructed achieving the aims of the federal program.