The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he did not obtain consent to reapply for admission prior to entering the United States. The Court rejected the argument, holding that, under the statute’s plain language, the consent to reapply must come after the defendant’s most recent removal, regardless of whether he had prior permission to reapply.
The Court found sufficient evidence that the defendant did not have such permission after his last removal.
The Court also rejected the defendant’s Batson claim, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case of a discriminatory purpose for the preemptory challenges at issue.
This is a good reminder that, if you are going to make a Batson challenge, you better have something specific to say in support other than that the juror was a minority.
