SPONSOR


U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, May 26, 2010
Chi v. Holder , No. 09-2583
A Chinese native's petition for review a BIA's denial of a motion to reopen to allow him to seek an adjustment of his immigration status is denied where: 1) the BIA acted well within its discretion in denying the motion; 2) there is no basis for a due process claim; and 3) petitioner's claim that the government is equitably estopped from removing him because it failed to remove him in 1998 is rejected, as well as his request that the court redraft the statutory and regulatory scheme.

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 28, 2010
Rama v. Holder, No. 09-2156
A petition for review of BIA's affirmance of an IJ's denial of Albanian family's application for asylum and an order of removal is denied as the IJ's credibility determination is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 24, 2010
Jiang v. Holder, No. 08-73186
In a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture, the petition is granted where petitioner suffered persecution for demonstrating resistance to China's coercive population control policy.


SPONSOR

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 26, 2010
Segura v. Holder, No. 08-72062
In a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner ineligible for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the petition is denied where: 1) petitioner failed to assert his challenge to the Immigration Judge's authority in his appeal to the BIA; and 2) because petitioner was erroneously admitted for permanent residence, he was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and thus was ineligible for section 212(c) relief.


U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, May 26, 2010
US v. Orozco-Acosta, No. 09-50192
Defendant's conviction and sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. following removal are affirmed where: 1) any doubt arising from the possibility that the governments record search was less comprehensive than the search conducted for a Certificate of Non-Existence of Record was allayed by the introduction of defendant's own sworn statement that he had not applied for permission to re-enter, as well as the arresting agent's testimony that defendant admitted that he lacked documents allowing him to be in the U.S. legally; 2) nothing in Melendez-Diaz was clearly irreconcilable with Bahena-Cardenas's holding that a warrant of removal is nontestimonial because it was not made in anticipation of litigation; 3) the jury instructions as a whole adequately presented defendant's theory of the case; and 4) the district court imposed a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range after carefully and rationally considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a).

Supreme Court of California, May 27, 2010
People v. Jacinto , No. S164011
In a prosecution of defendant for murder, court of appeal's reversal of trial court's decision granting defendant's motion to dismiss the charges is affirmed as, under the circumstances of this case, the deportation of a sole witness favorable to the defense did not violate defendant's federal and state constitutional rights to the compulsory attendance of witnesses in his favor.