 NEWS FROM THE COURTS
US v. Reyes-Lugo, Fifth Circuit
In this case, the court upheld the trial court’s decision to impose a sentence for illegal reentry following deportation consecutively with a sentence for probation violation.
Jorge Reyes-Lugo was deported from the US twice, once in 1991 because of an aggravated felony conviction, and again in 1996. In 1998, Texas authorities found him and revoked the probation to which he was sentenced for the 1991 conviction. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. He was also prosecuted by federal authorities for illegally reentering the US following deportation. He was found guilty and sentenced to 70 months, to be served consecutively with the state sentence.
On appeal Reyes Lugo argued that the federal sentence should have been ordered to run concurrently with the state sentence. Reyes-Lugo based this argument on a portion of the US Sentencing Guidelines that calls for concurrent sentences if one of them is taken into consideration in arriving at the sentence under the Guidelines. He argued that because his deportation for an aggravated felony was used to enhance his federal sentence, it was taken into consideration and his sentences should be concurrent.
The court disagreed, finding that in fact the Sentencing Guidelines addressed this very situation, and provides that if a defendant is on probation or similar restraint and the probation is revoked, “the sentence for the instant offense should be imposed to run consecutively to the term imposed for the violation of probation.” The court found that Reyes-Lugo’s case fell squarely within this provision, and that his sentences were properly set to run consecutively.
The opinion is available online at http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2001,0105-Reyes.shtm.
*********
Meghani v. INS, Seventh Circuit
In this case, the court upheld the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying asylum.
Amin Meghani, a citizen of Pakistan, became active in the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in 1983. In 1987, he became a ward leader and ran a local PPP office in Karachi. In 1988, two PPP members were shot and killed by members of the opposition political party. That same day, Meghani and several other PPP members were beaten up at the PPP headquarters. Meghani said that he did not bother going to the police because they seldom investigated such incidents. The PPP won the 1988 elections and was in power until 1990. Meghani fled Karachi after the beating and in 1989 traveled to India where he stayed with a family member for a year. He then returned to Karachi and in 1993 obtained a fraudulent passport and attempted to enter the US. Upon his entry, the INS apprehended him. He applied for asylum, claiming that he had been persecuted on the basis of his political opinion.
The Immigration Judge denied his application for asylum, finding that while Meghani was a credible witness, he had not suffered persecution in the past and did not have a reasonable fear of future persecution. In September 1993, Meghani appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Board did not rule on the case until March 2000, when it dismissed it. Meghani appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
On appeal, Meghani argued that the Board improperly applied a rule requiring corroboration of testimony that was created after the Immigration Judge heard his case. The court dismissed this argument, finding that a case it to be decided by the law in effect at the time the case is decided. The court declined to address the corroboration rule itself, which has been found illegal by the Ninth Circuit, because Meghani did not make this argument. The court found also that Meghani was not prejudiced by the corroboration rule, because even had he presented corroborating evidence, he still would not have been able to show that he had been persecuted. The court agreed with the Immigration Judge and the Board that Meghani was merely harassed by a competing political faction and that he did not suffer persecution. Nor did he face a reasonable fear of future persecution. While the Board examined only the 1993 State Department Country Report on Pakistan, and not a more recent one, the Board is under no obligation to examine the most recent Report.
While the court dismissed the appeal, it did note that Meghani was free to file a motion to reopen and present new evidence on any changed condition in Pakistan since the 1993 report.
The opinion is available online at http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/immigdaily/cases/2001,0105-Meghani.shtm.
| 
