Leslie Camick v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3506 No. 17-2089 ___________________________ Leslie Lyle Camick lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ----------------------------------------- National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild lllllllllllllllllllllAmicus on Behalf of Petitioner ____________ Petition for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: February 15, 2018 Filed: June 8, 2018 ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Leslie Lyle Camick, a Canadian native and citizen, petitions for review of two decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA): in No. 16-3506, the BIA’s decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision granting voluntary departure with an alternate order of removal; in No. 17-2089, the BIA’s order denying reconsideration of the first decision. We deny both petitions. I. Background. Camick entered the United States in 2006 using the name and birth certificate of his deceased younger brother. In 2011, represented by counsel, Camick conceded removability at a hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ) in New Jersey, admitting that he was removable for procuring admission by misrepresentation and lacking valid entry documents. Removal proceedings were suspended when Camick was detained in the District of Kansas on criminal charges related to use of his brother’s identity. A jury convicted Camick on all counts; the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an obstruction of justice conviction but reversed the other counts. United States v. Camick, 796 F.3d 1206, 1212-13, 1222-23 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 601 (2015). After Camick was released from custody in the criminal proceedings, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detained him in Kansas. In December 2015, a New Jersey IJ granted the government’s motion to change venue of the removal proceedings to Kansas City, Missouri. Camick appeared pro se before a Kansas City IJ in January 2016. He stated he was pursuing three avenues for relief from removal and requested release from DHS custody under a reduced bond. The IJ set bond in the amount of $7,500 and scheduled a removal hearing for February 11; both parties waived appeal of that ruling. At the end of the hearing, the IJ commented to Camick, “you’re not the typical pro se litigant, sir. You’ve had a lot of practice it -2- seems.” He replied, “Yes, absolutely. I’ve been an avid student of Immigration law for the past four years now.”1 At the February 11 hearing, Camick had not obtained relief from removal. After the IJ declined his request for work authorization, Camick said he now could not afford a $7,500 bond. The government opposed a continuance, urging the IJ to enter an order of removal unless Camick requested voluntary departure, noting he could pursue a nonimmigrant visa application after removal to Canada. The IJ asked Camick if he would be interested in “pre-conclusion” voluntary departure. The IJ explained this would allow him to depart the United States without a removal order and return immediately if he secured ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals