697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir. 2012)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct 4, 2012

697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir. 2012)

Summary

holding that those cases could not form the basis for a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

Summary of this case from United States v. Ennis

See 14 Summaries

Opinion

No. 11–3052.

2012-10-4

Jose ANAYA–AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A29–665–793. Maria T. Baldini–Potermin (argued), Attorney, Maria Baldini–Potermin & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. OIL, Tiffany L. Walters (argued), Attorneys, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. No. A29–665–793.
Maria T. Baldini–Potermin (argued), Attorney, Maria Baldini–Potermin & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner. OIL, Tiffany L. Walters (argued), Attorneys, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Charles Roth, Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae.

Before DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, SHARON J. COLEMAN, District Court Judge.

ORDER

After the petitioner filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, the National Immigrant Justice Center filed an amicus curiae brief in which it expressed concern that our opinion might be read to render unreviewable all instances where the Board of Immigration Appeals refuses to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen a case—including cases in which the Board has committed a legal or constitutional error. Such a reading would certainly conflict with our precedent. See, e.g., Cevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 658, 660 (7th Cir.2006). But our opinion should not be read that broadly; we do not mean to foreclose review of the Board's denial of a motion to reopen sua sponte in cases where a petitioner has a plausible constitutional or legal claim that the Board misapplied a legal or constitutional standard. That is not the type of claim that the petitioner advanced in this case, so the Board's decision is unreviewable.

That said, on consideration of the petition for rehearing filed by petitioner-appellant, all judges on the original panel have voted to deny rehearing. Further, no judge in active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore DENIED.

Summaries of

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct 4, 2012

697 F.3d 1189 (7th Cir. 2012)

holding that those cases could not form the basis for a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)

Summary of this case from United States v. Ennis

holding that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will follow the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's holding concerning whether Frye and Lafler recognized a new right

Summary of this case from Sayles v. United States

denying petition for rehearing

Summary of this case from Patel v. Holder

denying authorization to file successive § 2254 petition noting "that Cooper and Frye did not announce new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context"

Summary of this case from Adams v. United States

denying authorization to file successive 2254 petition noting that Lafler did not announce new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context

Summary of this case from Cruz-Delgado v. United States

denying state prisoner's motion to file a successive habeas petition on the grounds that Lafler did not announce a new rule of constitutional law

Summary of this case from Crissup v. Stephens

Summary of this case from Stovall v. United States

denying the filing of a second or successive § 2254 petition, holding that "Frye did not announce new rule[] of constitutional law because [it] merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context"

Summary of this case from LII v. Hawaii

clarifying Anaya-Aguilar I on denial of rehearing

Summary of this case from Fuller v. Whitaker

considering application to file successive petition

Summary of this case from Neiberger v. McCollum

agreeing with Eleventh Circuit's In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 933-34 (11th Cir. 2012) decision, that neither Cooper nor Frye announced new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual situation

Summary of this case from Bush v. United States

stating "[Lafler] and Frye do not announce new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context"

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Ransom

stating “[Lafler ] and Frye do not announce new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context”

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Hernandez

stating “[Lafler ] and Frye do not announce new rules of constitutional law because they merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to a specific factual context”

Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. Feliciano

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Summary

Opinion

ORDER

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Summary

Opinion

ORDER

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Anaya–Aguilar v. Holder

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations