• Hours & Info

    (562) 495-0554
    M-F: 8:00am - 6:00 p.m.
    Sat: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
  • Past Blog Posts

  • https://api.whatsapp.com/send?phone=13104885414

Nijhawan changes what is an Aggravated Felon



NIJHAWAN changes Criminal Conviction Analysis

The manner in which Immigration Attorneys used to analyze whether a particular conviction is an aggravated felon has changed. It is necessary to look into the newly issued Supreme Court case NIJHAWAN to find out what must be done by the Immigration Attorneys and what should be done to try to help the criminal defendant. First, however, you should know the basic facts of this case. First, it was a defendant that committed fraud. In Immigration Law, it specifically states that an aggravated felony is one whereby the defendant commits fraud upon someone else in which the deceit to the victim is more than $10,000.

In this particular case, there was no amount specified in the judgment as to the amount that the victim suffered. However, in other documents in the file and in other parts of the proceedings there was information that the amount the victim suffered was $1,000,000U.S.. Therefore, the issue becomes what can the Immigration court, BIA or Circuit Courts look at in order to determine whether an aggravated felony as put forth under Immigration Law has been committed. Under the old TAYLOR analysis, it was quite limited what could or could not be looked at by the Immigration court to determine this. Without going into too much detail, there was analysis as to whether the it should be a ‘categorical’ or ‘non-categorical’ approach.

Nijhawan put forth a different type of analysis dealing with ‘circumstances’. Words such as “crime,” “felony, and “offense” sometimes refer to a generic crime (a “categorical” interpretation), and sometimes refer to the specific acts in which an offender engaged (“circumstance- specific” interpretation). The basic argument favoring the “categorical” interpretation rests upon the Taylor case. The categorical analysis rests heavily on interpretation of the statute, a breakdown of the language in the statute of the crime that was committed and an analysis as to whether the federal definition of the crime matched the actual crime the defendant was convicted under.

In Nijhawan, the Supreme Court stated that the Immigration Attorneys in this case would have to use the circumstance specific interpretation, not the categorical interpretation. Here, the analysis does not fall on the language of the statute, but the circumstances which is anticipated by the language of the statute. Thus, whereby Nijhawan was arguing that the Immigration Court should only be allowed to look at the charging documents, abstract of judgment and other very specific documents, the Supreme Court disagreed. The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous. Thus, it will probably not be overturned anytime soon.

To make clear, Nijhawan states that in this particular case, the $10,000 threshold is NOT an element of the crime, and therefore, the categorical approach is not applicable. The jury in this case found Nijhawan guilty, but nowhere in any of the crimes that he was convicted is the amount of the deceit to the victim an element of the crime. If it is ‘element’ specific, then we must look at the specific facts giving rise to the conviction, not the statute itself. Keep in mind that the categorical approach is when looking at the general definition of the crime itself and still can be used if an elemental analysis is not called for.

As for documents that are permitted, it seems that under the Nijhawan ‘circumstance’ specific interpretation, the door has been opened considerably. Specifically, plea agreements, stipulations and the like will be admissible for the Immigration Court to be able to see. Thus, it seems that it has become more difficult for Immigration Attorneys to try to argue that certain crimes are not aggravated felonies. However, it does seem to fall on whether a particular crime involves using the categorical approach, or the elemental approach. As to which approach to use and as to which crime falls under either approach, I am certain there will be much litigation in the future.

A new case

A new case: Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying late-filed motion to reopen removal proceedings where Guatemalan petitioner’s HIV diagnosis was not new information and was only a change in personal circumstances. Adoption of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement–which petitioner argued could affect access to treatment–did not amount to changed country conditions that resurrected petitioner’s late-filed motion where he failed to show that passage of the treaty was material to his claim. Lopez Almaraz v. Holder

BIA

BIA decisions 

Board of immigration appeals

BIA issues two crime related decisions

USCIS Guidance on Uniform Denial Language Pertaining to Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

USCIS draft memorandum, “Guidance on Uniform Denial Language Pertaining to Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

BIA

Board of immigration appeals

BIA and immigration

BIA issues two crime related decisions

Motion to Reopen an in absentia order of deportation was granted by the BIA

BIA granted a motion to reopen an in absentia order of deportation based on Matter of Lozada. BIA found Matter of Lozada substantially satisfied where prior attorney is now deceased.

Good news from the BIA

Good news from the BIA: Aliens who are otherwise eligible to adjust status under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006), are not subject to the unauthorized employment restrictions of sections 245(c) and the exception for such employment in section
245(k) that apply to applications for adjustment of status under section 245(a).

Board of immigration appeals

Appeal to BIA

BIA meaning

New BIA case hits people in deportation hard

A New BIA case on conspiracy:

(1) The term “conspiracy” in section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U) (2006), is not limited to conspiracies that require the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy by one of the conspirators.

(2) An alien who was only convicted of conspiracy to commit an aggravated felony and is removable on the basis of that conviction under section 101(a)(43)(U) of the Act may not also be found removable for the underlying substantive offense, even though the record
of conviction shows that the conspirators actually committed the substantive offense.

Appeal to BIA

BIA

Board of immigration appeals

BIA attorney

New Case on Convention Against Torture

New Case on Convention Against Torture: Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in determining that petitioners failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for immigration relief because their proposed social group, “returning Mexicans from the United States,” was too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group; generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to petitioners and was insufficient to establish a likelihood of torture.
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder – filed April 6, 2010

BIA

Board of immigration appeals

Appeal to BIA

BIA deference given to particularly serious crime

 

 

 

BIA decision

A new case. Another aggravated felony. Alien’s conviction for grand theft under California Penal Code Sec. 487(a) qualified as an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach. By referencing alien’s “conviction record,” Board of Immigration Appeals sufficiently referenced the record as a whole. Abstract of judgment could fairly be read as a summary of alien’s specific offense, not merely a recitation of the title of the statute, and read together with the felony complaint, those documents clearly and specifically demonstrated that alien pleaded guilty to a charge of grand theft of personal property. Alien may not collaterally attack his state court conviction on a petition for review of a BIA decision.
Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder – filed April 9, 2010

Appeal to BIA

BIA meaning

Board of Immigration Appeals

Immigration judge

New Case on BIA being overruled

New Case on BIA being overruled: Because deferral of removal is available under the Convention Against Torture regardless of whether petitioner has been convicted of a crime, a denial of deferral of removal under CAT is always a decision on the merits. Where alien testified credibly that Nigerian citizens deported for crimes committed in foreign lands were immediately imprisoned upon returning to Nigeria and nothing in the record contradicted this testimony, Board of Immigration Appeals’ conclusion that alien was not likely to be detained upon return to Nigeria was not supported by substantial evidence. Both BIA and immigration judge erred in failing to consider potentially dispositive testimony and evidence that alien would be intentionally tortured in Nigerian prisons because he has AIDS and subject to having his medications withheld as a form of punishment, and such evidence was required to be given reasoned consideration on remand.
Eneh v. Holder – filed April 15, 2010

BIA

Appeal to BIA

Board of immigration appeals

BIA deference given to particularly serious crime

New case

New case where Appellate Court ruled the BIA and IJ were wrong in ruling that there was an adverse credibility finding: Alien’s submission of two news articles describing a rally in India where he said he was arrested did not support an adverse credibility finding based on fact that one article did not mention any violence or arrests at rally and alien did not provide a contemporaneous clarification this article was not entirely accurate. Alien’s failure to explain why a newspaper article stated Delhi police exempted Sikh women from the helmet law before date of rally did not support an adverse credibility finding since only the government could grant such an exemption and later events contradicted this report. Speculation as to what “grave and serious” offenses termination order from alien’s employer was referring to could not be used to support an adverse credibility finding. Where requested documentation was not easily available to alien because it was in India and under the control of a third party, alien’s failure to provide corroborating evidence did not support an adverse credibility finding. Alien’s claim that he had not been formally terminated at his first merits hearing was consistent with employer’s termination order where alien claimed he was unaware of the termination order at the first hearing and had arrived in the United States nearly 10 months before that order was issued. Even if termination order were “poorly drafted and formatted” as Board of Immigration Appeals held, such a conclusion does not bear a substantial and legitimate nexus to the adverse credibility finding. BIA’s disbelief of alien’s decision not to challenge his suspension from work based on speculation and conjecture about what someone in alien’s position would or would not do did not support the adverse credibility finding. Neighbor’s testimony that alien “quit” because he would have had to compromise his religion by cutting his hair and beard in order to keep his job was consistent with alien’s claim that he could have had his job back if he cut his hair and trimmed his beard, but that he was not willing to do so. Where alien repeatedly testified that no media or police reports of a bus explosion exist, or if they did, he was unable to locate them, alien’s failure to provide such reports did not support an adverse credibility finding. Alien was not required to provide “strong” or “conclusive” evidence of bus explosion and his subsequent arrest and mistreatment. Where immigration judge’s skepticism as to the plausibility of alien’s testimony was based on a mischaracterization of that testimony, such skepticism did not provide a proper basis for upholding an adverse credibility finding. IJ and BIA erred to the extent they based an adverse credibility finding on statistics contained in a 2003 Country Conditions Report because those statistics reveal nothing about the circumstances or persecution of Sikhs living in New Delhi in 1998, the year in which alien claimed he was persecuted.

BIA

BIA meaning

Board of immigration appeals

BIA remand case back to USCIS