Appellate Angel

"Man Fights Deportation By Invoking His Former Gang Ties"

Stalled Worker Visas Solved in U.S. Courts

Feds To Deport Illegals From Prisons, Jails

Appeals court overturns Cupertino exporter's conviction

Selected Cases In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and California State Courts:

Carrillo-Jaime v. Holder, 572 F.3d. 747 (9th Cir. 2009)
(published opinion holding that a conviction for operating a "chop shop", which is a violation of California Vehicle Code § 10801, is not an aggravated felony as a theft offense.  Case was remanded to allow Mexican national to apply for cancellation of removal as a lawful permanent resident).
The opinion can be found at: 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/15/06-74581.pdf

United States v. Jiang, 476 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2007)
(published case reversing 18 U.S.C. 1001 conviction in which the defendant, a Chinese national, was charged was making a false statement to a government officer. There was no recording of the statement, there was language barrier, the agent could not recall the precise question asked, and the defendant produced supporting documentation that demonstrated that his answer was a literally true response. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.)

Click here to see the opinion on the above case.

Chawla v. Holder, No. 05-77231 (9th Cir. 2010)
(prevailed on claim that an Indian citizen was wrongfully denied asylum and withholding. The asylum applicant was persecuted on account of a protected ground based on testimony that the police were seeking to harm him, in part, based on his father's political activities.  The Immigration Judge also erred in failing to view the cumulative effect of harassment, threats, and extortion when ascertaining whether the Indian citizen suffered past persecution.)

People v. Winn, A125435 (California Court of Appeal, First District 2010) (holding that Penal Code section 4019 is retroactive.  Court agreed that the defendant was entitled to have her pre-sentence custody credits recalculated under the new law.)

Mojica v. Holder, No. 08-73938 (9th Cir. 2010)
(prevailed on claim that Board of Immigration Appeals failed to consider expert evidence of impact removal would have on petitioners' son.  The case was remanded to allow petitioners to pursue their cancellation of removal application.)

Alejo-Ceja v. Holder, Nos. 05-76475 & 06-71150 (9th Cir. 2009)
(prevailed on claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed consider evidence of a newly-discovered medical condition afflicting the petitioners' daughters.  The case was remanded to allow petitioners to pursue their cancellation of removal claims.)

Arnold v. Holder, Nos. 05-77239 & 06-75139 (9th Cir. 2009)
(prevailed on claim that lawful permanent resident's state conviction was not an aggravated felony because a Johnson waiver had reduced the length of the sentence.  Petitioner therefore was entitled to a hearing to present his cancellation of removal claim.)

Ortega Gonzalez v. Holder, No. 05-72143 (9th Cir. 2009)
(prevailed on claim that ineffective assistance of counsel prevented Mexican national from seeking suspension of deportation and that exceptional circumstances excused her from complying with her voluntary departure order.)

Barthold v. Holder, No. 06-74756 (9th Cir. 2009)
(prevailed on claim that Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen seeking asylum, withholding, and protection under CAT based on changed circumstances. The asylum applicant, a native of Haiti, had been previously denied asylum, withholding, and protection under CAT. After her case was denied, a coup occurred, which placed her life in danger.)

Saidani v. Holder, No. 05-72333 (9th Cir. 2009)
(prevailed on a claim that an Algerian national who had been tortured remains eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture despite an adverse credibility finding.)

Saint-Fort v. Mukasey, No. 06-73645 (9th Cir. 2008)
(prevailed on claim that client--a young man who had been convicted of a crime in the United States---would more likely than not be tortured upon his return to Haiti.  Haitian national was a young man who had fled after witnessing the murder of a family member.  The country condition reports establish that the Haitian government is deliberately creating deplorable and inhumane prison conditions to harm U.S. deportees)

Ruiz-Flores v. Gonzales, No. 05-72723 (9th Cir. July 16, 2007)
(prevailed on claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to properly analysis an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Clients are Mexican family seeking cancellation of removal.)

Vu v. Gonzales, No. 04-70937 (9th Cir. 2007)
(prevailed on claim that Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion in denying a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Vietnamese national had applied for asylum and withholding after being tortured by government authorities. His first attorney erred by failing to object to translation problems at his hearing and failing to object to the immigration judge's improper quiz of his religious convictions.)

Freire v. Ashcroft, No. 03-71520 (9th Cir. 2005)
(prevailed on claim that Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenge to the immigration judge's determination that no exceptional circumstances excused asylum applicant's failure to apply for relief within one year of entry. Asylum applicant was a gay man from Brazil who had been arrested, beaten, and abused by the police on multiple occasions. The last beating left him crippled.). This was the first federal court to conclude that Congress did not divest jurisdiction from the federal courts to review constitutional challenges to an Immigration Judge's determination that it erred in finding that no exceptional circumstances excused an untimely asylum application.

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS:

Matter of D-M- (2010)
(granted motion to remand for Mexican nationals seeking cancellation of removal.  Mexican family's prior attorney denied them effective assistance of counsel by failing to present to the Immigration Judge expert evidence that the impact of removal would have on their teenage son.)

Matter of E-A- (2009) (granted motion to remand for unaccompanied minor based on application of the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to individual's claim.  Honduran national is seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT based on fear of retaliation by gangs seeking to recruit him)

Matter of A-S- (2009) (granted motion to reopen based on changed circumstances and ineffective assistance of counsel.  Iranian national was seeking withholding and CAT based on anticipated harm he would experience based on his conversion to Christianity and on his controlled substances conviction incurred in the United States).

Matter of T- A- (2009) Matter of T- A- (2009) (granted motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and the BIA's sua sponte authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Pakistani national was seeking adjustment of status based on an approved employment visa. The BIA will allow client to pursue adjustment application based on his status as a grandfathered alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i).)

Matter of N- M- (2009) (granted motion to reopen based on changed circumstances.  Iranian national was seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT based on the anticipated harm she would experience if she had to be subjected to Iran's morality codes)

Matter of J-H-R- (2009) (sustained appeal of lawful permanent resident who was charged with a controlled substance offense.  The BIA found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the state offense involved a substance proscribed under federal law.)

Matter of A-M- (2009) (granted motion to reopen for individual seeking asylum based on changed circumstances in Kenya)

Matter of Y-K- (2008) (granted motion to reopen for individual seeking asylum based on changed circumstances in the Democratic Republic of Congo and alleging that prior ineffective assistance of counsel barred full presentation of claim)

Matter of R-G- (2008) (granted motion to reopen and motion to rescind filed by individual ordered removed in absentia.  Client granted an opportunity to file for asylum, withholding, and CAT based on his fear of harm arising from his former association with a gang)

Matter of J-R- (2008) (granted motion to reopen to reissue decision that was abandoned due to the ineffective assistance of counsel.  Lawful permanent resident allowed to pursue a timely petition for review with the Ninth Circuit seeking cancellation of removal and CAT)

IMMIGRATION COURT:

Matter of R-H- and R-T-, (Helena, MT 2010)
(prevailed on applications for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents whose removal would cause extreme and exceptionally unusual hardship for their citizen child.)

Matter of A-N- (San Diego, CA 2009) (prevailed on asylum claim for Cameroon national who faced persecution based on political activism and sexual orientation)

Matter of R-R- (Tacoma, WA 2009) (prevailed on claim of cancellation of removal for lawful permanent resident.  Criminal charges included drug-related offenses and crimes of moral turpitude)

Matter of J-D- (Imperial, CA 2009) (prevailed on bond hearing for lawful permanent resident who had been charged with committing an aggravated felony)

Matter of L-L- (Portland, OR 2009) (prevailed on withholding application for Mexican national who faced persecution on account of gender identity)

Matter of E-C- (San Francisco, CA 2008) (prevailed on motion to terminate for lawful permanent resident who was charged with various criminal offenses)

Matter of K-T- (Portland, OR 2008) (prevailed on asylum application for Tibetan national who faced persecution on account of religion and political opinion)

DISTRICT COURT:

Jean v. Chertoff, No. 06-CV-06919 (Declaratory relief and action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) Seeking judicial review over a client's eligibility for citizenship. Complaint alleged jurisdiction for government's failure to timely adjudicate a naturalization application. Complaint alleged that client's expunged conviction for a 1992 crime was not an aggravated felony under immigration law and therefore not a bar to naturalization. The case was resolved through a settlement and the client naturalized.)