Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, a Honduran national, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This appeal involved the constitutional separation of powers and the limited judicial role in the extradition of a foreign national. On appeal, petitioner contended that the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment barred his extradition by the Secretary of State, that the murder of the victim constituted a political offense for which he could not be extradited, and there was no valid extradition treaty in force between Honduras and the United States. The court held that petitioner's first argument was not ripe because the Secretary of State has not yet determined whether he was likely to be tortured nor decided whether to extradite him, and his other arguments lacked merit. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and affirmed in part the denial of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, lifted the stay of the extradition proceedings, and remanded with instructions to dismiss petitioner's claim under the Convention Against Torture. View "Meza v. U.S. Attorney General, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a lawful permanent resident, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA that vacated an immigration judge's decision that he was eligible for a hardship waiver under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(h). The IJ had determined that petitioner was eligible for a hardship waiver based on a misreading of the court's decisions in Lanier v. United States Attorney General. Petitioner argued that, as an alien lawfully present in the United States, he need not concurrently apply for an adjustment of his status, but the court must defer to the contrary interpretation of section 212(h) by the BIA. The court rejected petitioner's argument that the interpretation by the BIA would violate his right to equal protection as a component of due process of law. Petitioner's alternative argument that he qualified as an inadmissible alien eligible for a hardship waiver under section 212(h) also failed. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Poveda v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

This appeal involved challenges to ten provisions of Alabama's House Bill 56, the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56). The stated purpose of the legislation was to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities. The court found that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits of its challenges to sections 10, 11(a), 13(a), 16, 17, and 27 of H.B. 56. The court agreed with the United States that it was not likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to section 12(a) or section 18 at this time. The court also found that the United States had not shown at this stage that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to section 30. Finally, the court dismissed the United States' appeal as to section 28 as moot, as the court's opinion in the private plaintiffs' companion case fully disposed of that issue. View "United States v. State of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's order granting plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily enjoined enforcement of sections 7 and 8 of House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011 (H.B. 87), on the ground that each was preempted by federal law. H.B. 87 was enacted to address the problem of illegal immigration within the state. The court held that section 7 could not be reconciled with the federal immigration scheme or the individual provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part the district court's order preliminarily enjoining enforcement of section 7. The court reversed in part the portion of that order enjoining section 8. View "Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Governor of Georgia, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged various provisions of Alabama's House Bill 56, the "Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act" (H.B. 56). Because the court found that the United States was likely to succeed on its claims that sections 10 and 27 of H.B. 56 were preempted, the court dismissed the HICA plaintiffs' appeal as to those sections as moot. The court vacated as moot the district court's injunction of section 8 and remanded for the dismissal of the challenge to that section, as the statutory amendment had removed the challenged language. In light of the court's decision on the substantive provisions of sections 10, 11, and 13, the court vacated as moot the district court's order insofar as it preliminarily enjoined the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h). The court found that at least one of the HICA plaintiffs had standing to challenge section 28 and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for the entry of a preliminary injunction. Finally, the court concluded, for reasons stated in the United State's companion cases, Nos. 11-14532, 11-14674, that the HICA plaintiffs could not succeed on the merits of their facial challenges to sections 12, 18, and 30 at this time. View "Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al. v. Governor of Alabama, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner Odulene Dormescar, a native and citizen of Haiti, appealed a removal order issued by an immigration judge because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal of that order. He has petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for review. His petition presented three issues: (1) whether the Eleventh Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction; if it did, then the second (2) issue was whether res judicata barred the Department of Homeland Security’s proceedings against Petitioner based on the aggravated felony conviction. If it did not, the third (3) issue was whether the Department had the authority to amend the notice to appear to charge Petitioner as "admitted to the United States, but . . . removable" when he was originally charged as an inadmissible "arriving alien." Upon review, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction over this case, res judicata did not apply, and that the Department had the authority to amend the notice to appear to charge Petitioner as admitted but removable. View "Dormescar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner Elias Jimenez-Galicia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, sought judicial review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA"). The BIA's order affirmed an immigration judge's ("IJ") order of removal and denial of Petitioner's request for cancellation of removal. The denial was based on a determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character. Because the Fourth Circuit was not presented with a genuine question of law, the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Petitioner lacked good moral character. Therefore the Court dismissed the petition. View "Jimenez-Galicia v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's determination that his motion to reopen should be considered withdrawn because of his departure, relying upon Matter of Armendarez-Mendez. At issue was whether the "departure bar" regulation - stating that the BIA could not entertain a motion to reopen filed by or on behalf of a person who has departed the United States - impermissibly conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act's provision permitting an alien to file one motion to reopen, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A). The court concluded that the plain language of the statute, the statutory structure, and the amendment scheme all pointed to one conclusion: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Publ. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-549, guaranteed an alien the right to file one motion to reopen and the departure bar impermissibly undercutted that right. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lin v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Sudan, petitioned for review of the BIA's final order affirming the IJ's order of removal and denial of petitioner's application for waiver of inadmissibility under section 209(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1159(c). The court held that the IJ and the BIA committed no error in determining that petitioner was a violent or dangerous individual subject to In re Jean's heightened, "extraordinary circumstances" standard for determining whether to grant a discretionary section 209(c) waiver of inadmissibility. The court held, however, that the IJ and the BIA erred by failing to consider evidence of the country conditions in Sudan and the hardship petitioner individually would suffer upon removal to Sudan. Accordingly, the petition was granted in part, denied in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Makir-Marwil v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Peruvian citizen, sought review of the decision of the BIA that he was not eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under Section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). The BIA denied the petition because petitioner failed to show that he was "battered or subjected to extreme cruelty" by his American citizen spouse. The court concluded that the BIA had discretion to make this determination, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision that petitioner was not a battered spouse. View "Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Attorney General" on Justia Law