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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the final order of removal issued by the BIA affirming the IJ's finding that he was removable as charged and denying his applications for adjustment of status and post-order voluntary departure. This case involved petitioner's application for adjustment of status to permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. 1255, in which he asserted his entitlement to classification as a child under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), Pub. L. No. 107-208, section 1, 116 Stat. 927. The court held that the BIA correctly concluded that petitioner was not entitled to adjustment of status because he did not meet the requirements under the CSPA to maintain his child status. The court also held that the BIA correctly denied petitioner's request for post-order voluntary departure because he did not reside in the United States for one year immediately preceding the delivery date of the notice to appear. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.

Appellant illegally reentered the United States in 2007 and pled guilty to being an alien found in the United States after having been convicted of aggravated felonies and deported. Appellant challenged the district court's decision to impose a 16-level enhancement to his base level offense score pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), where the district court based the enhancement on its finding that the North Carolina statute under which appellant previously was convicted, N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-202.1, constituted "sexual abuse of a minor" and thus, was a "crime of violence" pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court and held that the Padilla-Reyes v. United States definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" was at least as broad and inclusive as section 14-202.1 and where appellant failed to demonstrate any North Carolina precedent that did not fit within the broad contours of the definition in Padilla-Reyes. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's denial of his request for discretionary relief and order of removal. At issue was whether an attorney rendered ineffective assistance when he conceded, at a second removal hearing, that petitioner had sought to procure an immigration benefit through willful misrepresentation of a material fact in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i); 1227(a)(1)(A). The court denied the petition for review and held that substantial evidence supported the finding by the BIA that the attorney's decision to concede removability was a reasonable strategic decision.