Tropnas v. Gonzales, No. 06-2784 denies a petition of an artist and political dissident from Haiti. The First says that the denial was okay, because nine years passed since the harassment and threatening occurred and any recent misfortunes were not connected.
Loyo-Arevalo v. Mukasey, No. 07-2054 (unpublished) denies the petition for review of a Guatemalan. The First says that it “carefully” considered it. He claims that his political affiliations subjected him to some harassment. The agency says that he failed to provide corroborating evidence and wasn’t credible because of some inconsistences. He also argues that the BIA’s summary affirmance procedure was violated because the underlying decision was incorrect and the errors were not harmless. The First says that the there were no errors, and therefore, the question of whether it has jurisdiction to review the use of the procedure is moot.
Rusli v. Gonzales, No. 06-1941 (6/27/08) (unpublished) summarily denies a petition for review by Indonesian Christian. It begins with this line: The brief filed by petitioners' counsel, Yan Wang, is a "cut and paste" affair that appears to present the facts of another case -- notably for a person of a different gender than Rusli, who had different experiences, in different years, and appeared before a different immigration judge. This substantive failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 alone justifies dismissal. And there were no arguments.
Jamal v. Gonzales, No. 07-1599 (6/27/08) is an asylum and CAT denial. The petitioner is from Pakistan who opposed Musharraf. He was beat up. The IJ said that things in Pakistan were now better because his wife and kids were doing okay there.
The First then says that an argument that the argument that "the failure of the IJ to make an individualized analysis in order to determine whether evidence exists in the record sufficient to qualify the Petitioner for an exception from the (one) 1-year asylum ban on the basis of changed circumstances or extraordinary circumstances . . . was a violation of due process . . . ." is “frivolous.” The IJ said that since America is the land of legal aid, he could have known about the deadlines.
Anyway, the First affirms the conclusions that the beatings were isolated instances and not really persecution.
Julce v. Mukasey, No. 07-2362 (6/20/08). The First lays out the issue like so:
The petitioner raises a new question for this court involving the interplay between the immigration law's definition of aggravated felons, who are ineligible for cancellation of removal, and the federal criminal statutory exception in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4) for reducing certain felony marijuana offenses from felonies to misdemeanor status.
I put more stuff down below.
Continue reading "CA1: no cancellation of removal for possession of small amounts of pot" »
USA v. Hilario-Hilario et al, Nos. No. 06-1007, 06-1009, 06-1010, 06-1011, 06-1013 (6/20/08). This is an alien smuggling case. The tone of the opinion seems to indicate that at least one judge on the First thinks that the government did a sloppy job of prosecuting it. But, this is probably more lawyer-to-lawyer sniping than it is an indication of their views about these cases. I find it somewhat ironic that the government put a lot of effort into proving that the vessel wasn’t that seaworthy, when, if it had sank, the underlying reason for prosecuting these people (i.e. bringing illegal aliens into the US) would have vanished. Strangely, the Victims Rights Industry doesn’t seem to care too much about the “victims.” There is lots here. Sentencing , photo lineups, etc.
Continue reading "CA1: Alien smuggling case has something for everyone" »
Gonzalez-Mesias v. Mukasey, No. 07-2346. This is an immigration case on a fairly narrow question of law. This issue comes down to whether sodomy in Virginia, under Va. Code § 18.2-67.1 is a crime of violence. In the Second Circuit, Blake v. Carbone, 489 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2007), rejected the idea that limit waivers of deportation[under former INA section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c)] to only those grounds of deportability for which there is a comparable ground of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2). The BIA said it disagreed with the Second Circuit for cases outside the Second. But, the First says that its circuit law is simply different than that of the Second and were not overruled by any subsequent Supreme Court cases.
Sombah v. Mukasey, No. 07-1481 denies a petition for review of a asylum/CAT claim of an Indonesian Christian. (The CAT claims are waived.) The IJ said that the harassment was a “private” matter, and the BIA concluded that they were not persecuted. The First says that this is okay, and notes that because the IJ didn’t conclude that the government was behind this that there really isn’t a legal error.
Santosa v. Mukasey, No. 07-2016. This opinion denies the asylum petition of another Indonesia Christian. This one with Chinese ancestry. The First says that he really didn’t establish persecution. A due process claim is rejected.
Kamuh v. MuKasey, No. 07-1639 (unpublished) denies a petition for review of an asylum petition. The petitioner is an Seventh Day Adventist from Indonesia. Most of the incidents that the petitioner pointed to establish persecution seemed to involve private citizens, and that the government seemed interested in punishing the perpetrators.
Recent Comments