Krasilych v. Holder, No. 09-1026 (9/29/09) exclusionary rule, Ukrainian withholding of removal
Krasilych v. Holder (Per Curiam)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of the BIA’s denial of a Ukrainian citizen’s application for withholding of removal is denied as the exclusionary rule generally does not apply in removal proceedings, and here, petitioner obtained the I-551 stamp on his passport during an undercover investigation coordinated by immigration authorities.
Barradas v. Holder, No. 08-3440 (9/23/09) burden of proof as to existence of conviction, Compelled Testimony, Excessive Interrogation by IJ
Barradas v. Holder (Tinder)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Record contained sufficient evidence to support IJ’s finding that lawful permanent resident was removable on grounds that he had abetted other aliens to enter U.S. unlawfully. While govt. failed to produce court record regarding defendant’s prior guilty plea to charge of alien smuggling, govt. could use criminal complaint, Forms I-213 and I-831, as well as evidence of defendant’s guilty plea to said offense to satisfy its burden of proof as to existence of conviction. Ct. also rejected alien’s argument that IJ denied him due process by implying that he would take adverse inference if alien refused to take witness stand, and by questioning alien regarding underlying facts of alien smuggling charge. Here, the court deferred to the Attorney General’s regulation for determining what kinds of evidence may be used to prove a criminal conviction in immigration proceedings, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41. Subsection (d) of this regulation provides that “[a]ny . . . evidence that reasonably indicates the existence of a criminal conviction may be admissible as evidence thereof.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.41(d). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply in immigration proceedings. Doumbia v. Gonzales, 472 F.3d 957, 962 (7th Cir. 2007). Evidence is admissible so long as it is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair. Rosendo-Ramirez, 32 F.3d at 1088. The court allowed the admission of Forms I-213 to prove the truth of their contents. See Rosendo-Ramirez, 32 F.3d at 1089.
Patel v. Holder, No. 08-3067 (09/16/09) withholding of removal; lack of jurisdiction, India
Patel v. Holder (Wood)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of BIA’s denial of Indian national’s application for withholding of removal is denied and dismissed in part where: 1) petitioner’s request for continuance is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and in the alternative denied for lack of merit; 2) BIA’s finding that petitioner did not have a well-founded fear of persecution was supported by reasonable, substantial, and probable evidence; and 3) petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Record contained sufficient evidence to support IJ’s denial of alien’s application for withholding of removal based on past persecution where alien testified that physical attacks that occurred in native country were motivated by business reasons, as opposed to his religion or political activities.
Ishitiaq v. Holder, No. 08-2834 (08/25/09) Pakistan, Sunni Muslim CAT
Ishitiaq v. Holder (Williams)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of an order denying withholding of removal is denied where there is insufficient evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that defendant will face persecution if returned to his home country.
__________________________________
Joseph v. Holder, No. 08-2393 (08/27/09) motion to reopen
Joseph v. Holder (Wood)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of the BIA’s denial of a Pakistani petitioner’s motion to reopen removal proceedings is granted and remanded where the BIA committed legal error in adopting an overly narrow interpretation of 8 C.F.R. section 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) that runs counter to the plain language of the regulation.
Hassan v. Holder, No. 08-1535 (7/02/09) adverse credibility
Hassan v. Holder (Tinder)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of an order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture is denied where: 1) the agency’s adverse credibility determination, based on material inconsistencies between plaintiff’s asylum application and hearing testimony, is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that plaintiff failed to show failed to show past political persecution, and failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution.
__________________________________
US v. Kedjouti, No. 08-3732 (7/09/09) Algerian Withholding of removal
Hassan v. Holder (Flaum)
Oral Argument | Full Text
Petition for review of an order denying withholding of removal is denied where there is insufficient evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that defendant will face persecution if returned to his home country, Algeria.
__________________________________
