Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Luevano v. Holder, 2011 WL 4509473 (9/30/11) (Published) - The alien did not present enough facts about his arrest to show it was so fundamentally unfair so as to warrant exclusion of evidence. The removal proceedings themselves could not be dismissed as fruit of any poisonous tree. It was okay for the BIA to deny the alien's motion to continue the removal proceedings until he could be lawfully here pursuant to his U.S. citizen sister's application for his adjustment of status. It looked like it would take more than 18 years for her application to be granted, given the long waiting list and limited number of adjustments allowed each year.

U.S. v. Salvador-Munoz, 2011 WL 4526002 (9/30/11) (Okl.) (unpub'd) - The reentry defendant was not entitled to a duress or necessity defense, despite the Zetas' gangs threats to hurt him [a useful courier because he spoke English] if he didn't help them smuggle drugs to the U.S. by a certain deadline. The defendant had other lawful alternatives besides committing the horrible crime of entering the U.S. He could have moved to another Mexican town where his dad felt safe. His fear that another gang might threaten him if he moved to another town was insufficient to satisfy the imminent-threat requirement.

U.S. v. Villanueva, 2011 WL 4489567 (9/29/11) (N.M.) (unpub'd) - While the 10th Circuit acknowledged: "the better approach would have been for the d. ct. to permit the agent to testify "so that the d.ct. could determine whether the defendant met the complete and truthful part of the requirements to qualify for the safety valve reduction. Unfortunately, all the other sentences in the opinion were not so nice. The 10th declared the defendant gave untruthful or incomplete information about a few things and therefore the agent's testimony wouldn't have made a difference.

Navarro-Perez v. Holder, 2011 WL 4509484 (9/30/11) (unpub'd) - The 10th chastises both counsel for not submitting a 28(j) letter about a new 10th Circuit case that changed the law. So, to avoid such chastisement, it might be wise to submit a 28(j) even about a really bad new case.

Cert grants:

Wood v. Milyard, 2011 WL 1456997 (9/27/11) - Whether it was okay for the 10th to sua sponte raise the statute of limitations defense where the state had declared before the d. ct.: "the state will not challenge, but is not conceding, the timeliness of the habeas petition." And was the state's declaration a deliberate waiver of the statute of limitations defense.

Filarsky v. Delia, 2011 WL 496619 (9/27/11) - Does qualified immunity protect a private attorney who advises a city?

Vartelas v. Holder, 2011 WL 1302166 (9/27/11) - Whether an Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act provision, passed in 1996, which denies certain legal permanent residents with a certain criminal history the right to make casual trips abroad without fear of reentry denial, apply retroactively where the alien entered the relevant guilty plea before passage of the Act.