Case Summaries

Immigration Law

[02/03] Diaz Ruano v. Holder
On petition for review of a BIA decision that affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying the petitioner's application for withholding of removal and protection from removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on claims that he would be subjected to persecution on account of his membership in the social groups of young males targeted by the criminal gangs in Guatemala for recruitment or because of opposition to gangs, and in the group of persons of perceived wealth returning from the United States, the petition is denied, where substantial evidence supported the determinations that: 1) the petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that, if removed to Guatemala, he would suffer persecution on account of his membership in a socially visible, sufficiently particular social group; and 2) the petitioner failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he would be subject to torture upon his return to Guatemala.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

[02/01] Phan v. Holder
In a case in which USCIS denied an application for naturalization on the grounds that the applicant could not show good moral character because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) on its face, the appellant's conviction satisfied the statutory requirements for a "conviction" of an aggravated felony; 2) although a court set aside the conviction, it acted pursuant to rehabilitative goals, which do not control the use of the conviction in the immigration context.

[01/31] Guerrero v. Holder
In removal proceedings in which a Salvadoran national requested asylum and withholding of removal based on mistreatment suffered at the hands of FMLN guerillas, the petition for review of the BIA's decision upholding the immigration judge's denial of asylum and withholding of removal is denied, where the petitioner failed to surmount the standard of review with respect to his claim of past persecution.

[01/31] Arevalo-Giron v. Holder
In removal proceedings in which a Guatemalan national applied for withholding of removal, asserting that if returned to Guatemala, she would face persecution on account of her status as either a single woman with perceived wealth or a former "child of war," the petition for review of a BIA decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of relief is denied, where: 1) the BIA was correct in finding that any potential hardship faced by the petitioner in Guatemala would be unrelated to her membership in either of the purported social groups; 2) the petitioner could not establish past persecution; 3) the situation described in the country conditions report was not so pervasive as to compel the conclusion that the petitioner was likely to suffer harm upon her return to her homeland; and 4) the petitioner did not show any connection between the violence that she feared and the government of Guatemala.

[01/30] US v. Casasola
In a prosecution of a Guatemalan citizen for illegal reentry into the United States after removal, the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the criminal information is affirmed, and the sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant did not obtain derivative citizenship when his father was naturalized before the defendant turned eighteen but his mother, still married to the father, was not; 2) the statute as it existed at the relevant time did not deny equal protection, because it did not permit automatic derivative citizenship when one parent having joint custody was naturalized, but rather required the custodial parent, upon naturalization, to have sole legal custody; and 3) a sentencing guideline amendment that deleted the criminal history "recency" points used to calculate the defendant's criminal history category was not retroactive, and the sentence was neither substantively nor procedurally unreasonable.

[01/30] Prudencio v. Holder
In removal proceedings against a lawful permanent resident who was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of Virginia Code section 18.2-371, a misdemeanor, the petition for review of a BIA decision dismissing an appeal from an immigration judge's decision is granted and the immigration judge's order of removal is vacated, where: 1) the Attorney General's approach to determining whether a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude, set forth in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), is not an authorized exercise of the Attorney General's authority under Chevron; and 2) under the categorical and modified categorical approaches, DHS did not satisfy its burden of showing that the conviction qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude.

[01/27] Tyson v. Holder
In removal proceedings against a returning lawful permanent resident who was convicted in 1980 for importation of a controlled substance pursuant to a stipulated facts agreement, the BIA's decision upholding the immigration judge's denial of section 212(c) relief is reversed, where: 1) the stipulated facts trial entitled the appellant to invoke the St. Cyr line of cases allowing for retroactive section 212(c) relief even though she did not enter a traditional guilty plea; and 2) the record established the appellant's objectively reasonable reliance on the continued availability of section 212(c) relief.

[01/26] de Carvalho-Frois v. Holder
In a case seeking judicial review of a BIA order upholding an immigration judge's denial of asylum for failure to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, the petition for review is denied, where the petitioner's claimed social group--witnesses to a serious crime whom the Brazilian government is unwilling or unable to protect--is too amorphous to satisfy the requirements for social visibility.

[01/26] Turkson v. Holder
In removal proceedings in which the immigration judge's decision deferring removal was reversed by the BIA, petition for review is granted and the BIA decision is vacated, where the BIA erred in reviewing the immigration judge's factual findings under the de novo standard of review instead of under the clearly erroneous standard prescribed by its governing regulations.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/03] US v. Mahin
In a prosecution on two counts of possessing a firearm or ammunition while subject to a domestic violence protective order in violation of 18 USC section 922(g)(8), the judgment of conviction is: 1) affirmed in part, where the statute and its application to the defendant's firearm use the same day he was served with a protective order did not violate the Second Amendment under the intermediate scrutiny standard; and 2) reversed in part and remanded for resentencing, where it was plain error to convict and sentence the defendant on two separate counts for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition under section 922(g)(8).

[02/03] US v. Culbertson
In a prosecution in which the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and five kilograms or more of cocaine, the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction, where: 1) there was an inadequate factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea with respect to the quantity of drugs for which he was responsible; and 2) the district court's error in accepting the defendant's plea was not harmless.

[02/03] US v. Leahy
In a sentencing challenge brought by a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, the district court's 10-year sentence is affirmed, where: 1) the district court's application of enhancements under the sentencing guidelines and its inclusion of criminal history points was procedurally reasonable; and 2) the sentence, although the maximum possible, was substantively reasonable, as the district court articulated a plausible sentencing rationale and imposed a sentence within the range of reasonable outcomes.

[02/02] US v. Rivera-Santana
In a sentencing challenge after the appellant was convicted of illegal reentry into the United States after being removed for a conviction of an aggravated felony, the sentencing court's judgment order is affirmed, where: 1) two upward departures in the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, augmented by an upward variance of 90 months therefrom, were not procedurally unreasonable; and 2) the resulting sentence, which was the statutory maximum, was not substantively unreasonable.

[02/02] People v. Brents
In a prosecution for first-degree murder and other crimes which resulted in a conviction and death sentence, the judgment is reversed as to the sentence of death, and the jury's true finding on the kidnapping special circumstance allegation is stricken, where the jury was not properly instructed regarding the need to find an independent felonious purpose to kidnap the victim, but the convictions are otherwise upheld where: 1) hearsay statements were admissible under Evidence Code section 791(b) as prior consistent statements; 2) there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of a photograph of the victim's body; 3) the trial court did not violate Penal Code section 654's prohibition against multiple sentences for a single act or course of conduct by imposing a death sentence for the murder conviction and a consecutive 25-years-to-life term for the felony assault conviction; and 4) the trial court did not make multiple errors, so that the defendant's claim of cumulative prejudice necessarily failed.

[02/02] People v. Elliott
On appeal of the death sentence after conviction for crimes including first-degree murder with the special circumstance of murder during the commission of a robbery, the sentence is affirmed against numerous and various challenges on issues relating to: 1) pretrial procedures and jury selection; 2) the defendant's guilt; 3) the penalty imposed; and 4) the adequacy of the appellate record.

[02/01] US v. Noriega-Perez
In a prosecution of a property owner stemming from his renting houses he owned near the United States-Mexico border to an alien smuggling organization knowing that they would be used as load houses to conceal and later transfer recently arrived aliens, the convictions are affirmed, where: 1) the strong circumstantial evidence presented at trial sufficed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that non-testifying material witnesses were illegal aliens; 2) a reasonable jury could find sufficient specific evidence linking the defendant to intentionally aiding the cross-border transportation of the named material witnesses before they were dropped off in the United States.

[02/01] Phan v. Holder
In a case in which USCIS denied an application for naturalization on the grounds that the applicant could not show good moral character because he was convicted of an aggravated felony, the district court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed, where: 1) on its face, the appellant's conviction satisfied the statutory requirements for a "conviction" of an aggravated felony; 2) although a court set aside the conviction, it acted pursuant to rehabilitative goals, which do not control the use of the conviction in the immigration context.

[02/01] US v. Lyttle
In a prosecution for numerous offenses relating to the defendant's involvement in a fraudulent high-yield investment program, before which the district court had granted a government application to suspend the statute of limitations pursuant to 18 USC section 3292 while the government sought the assistance of the Hungarian government in recovering records relating to transfers of the scheme’s proceeds into Hungarian bank accounts, the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed, where: 1) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s order; 2) section 3292 does not require that the foreign evidence sought be necessary for an indictment, nor that it be obtainable only through an official request to a foreign government; and 3) district courts may rely on ex parte proceedings when deciding to issue section 3292 orders.

[01/31] US v. Cain
In a prosecution of three individuals for racketeering and various related offenses, one defendant's RICO and RICO conspiracy convictions are reversed and all other convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court’s RICO instruction was legally erroneous, and prejudicial with regard to one defendant; 2) there were several errors in the calculation of the sentencing guidelines applicable to that defendant that needed to be corrected on remand; and 3) the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel of his choice when his retained attorney was disqualified by the magistrate judge overseeing pretrial proceedings.

[01/31] Cuevas v. Grondolsky
In a suit seeking habeas corpus relief under 28 USC section 2241 for alleged violations of the extradition treaty under which the prisoner was brought to the United States, the government's motion for summary disposition is allowed and the district court's judgment denying relief is affirmed, where: 1) the petitioner had twice sought habeas relief under 28 USC section 2255, without success; and 2) the petitioner could not circumvent the limits on multiple section 2255 petitions by resorting to section 2241 to assert a treaty claim that could as easily have been advanced in his original section 2255 petition.

More...

Family Law

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Marriage of Walker
In a family court proceeding in which the recipient of a California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) disability allowance challenged earlier family court orders awarding a community property interest in the allowance to his former spouse, the family court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the earlier orders is reversed, where the family court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the recipient had made "no mistake" in agreeing that his spouse had a community property interest in his disability allowance and thus should not have denied his motion on this basis.

[02/02] Marriage of Wahl
On appeal from an order requiring an ex-wife to pay to her former husband $552,153.28 in attorney's fees and costs as a sanction because of her conduct with respect to two post-dissolution orders, the order is affirmed, where the record disclosed no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award, and additional sanctions are imposed against the appellant and her appellate attorneys on a finding that the appeal is frivolous.

[01/31] T.W. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Servs. Agency)
In proceedings in mandate to review an order designating the specific placement of a dependent child after termination of parental rights, the petition is granted with directions, where the district court abused its discretion by denying a petition by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to remove the child from the home of his prospective adoptive parent, because the district court did not give appropriate weight to the legislature's goal of securing an adoptive home for a dependent child that is free from the influences of criminal activity and substance abuse.

[01/26] Tracy J. v. Superior Court
On a petition by developmentally disabled parents for review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the petition is granted and a writ of mandate is issued, where the parents did not receive reasonable family reunification services from the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, which unreasonably limited visitation services.

[01/19] E.C. v. J.V.
On a petition to establish a parental relationship with a minor, the trial court's order finding, that the appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a presumed parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court misapplied the UPA to the facts of the case by considering facts irrelevant to determining the appellant's commitment to the minor; and 2) it was necessary to remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion with a clear understanding of the law and determine whether the appellant held out the minor to be her natural child.

[01/18] In re Marriage of Hill and Dittmer
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding in which the wife challenged the validity of a prenuptial agreement and sought discovery of the nature and value of the husband's assets, the trial court's order finding the agreement valid is affirmed, where: 1) substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of validity; 2) amendments to Family Code section 1615 did not apply retroactively; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for additional discovery.

[01/12] In re Ashley B.
In an appeal from a Welfare & Institutions Code section 360(d) jurisdictional and dependency order of the juvenile court, order is upheld where the court correctly invoked Section 300(j) jurisdiction based on the circumstances leading to the death of dependent's her three-month-old brother

[01/11] R.T. v. Superior Court (Shasta County Health And Human Servs. Agency)
In a writ challenge to the trial court's order terminating reunification services and parental rights, petition is denied where petitioner's effort to treat her chronic substance abuse problems did not constitute a "reasonable effort" such that the bypass provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.5 (b)(10) and (b)(11) were rendered inapplicable to her in evaluating her child's case.

[01/11] Saraswati v. Co. of San Diego
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying petitioner's writ challenge to defendant's determination that allegations of child abuse against him were inconclusive rather than unfounded, judgment is reversed where the court erred in applying a "substantial evidence" standard of review instead of an "independent judgment" standard.

[01/05] Marriage of Sorge
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court modifying a child support award and imposing sanctions with an award of attorney's fees, judgment is reversed where the fiduciary duty to disclose material changes in income ends upon entry of a divorce decree, but affirmed otherwise.

More...