• Hours & Info

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

  • Past Blog Posts

Crime involving Moral Turpitude

<< (1) An alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for which a sentence of a year or longer may be imposed has been convicted of an offense “described under” section 237(a)(2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(2006), and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) (2006), regardless of the alien’s eligibility for the petty offense exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) (2006). Matter of Almanza, 24 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2009), clarified. Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008); Matter of Gonzalez-Silva, 24 I&N Dec. 218 (BIA 2007); and Matter of Garcia-Hernandez, 23 I&N Dec. 590 (BIA 2003), explained. (2) In determining which offenses are “described under” sections 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), and 237(a)(3) of the Act for purposes of section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, only language specifically pertaining to the criminal offense, such as the offense itself and the sentence imposed or potentially imposed, should be considered. (3) The respondent’s misdemeanor conviction for welfare fraud in violation of section 10980(c)(2) of the California Welfare and Institutions Code rendered her ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, because it was for a crime involving moral turpitude for which she could have been sentenced to a year in county jail and was therefore for an offense “described under” section 237(a)(2) of the Act.

Is the pre-trial diversion a conviction for immigration purposes?

is the pre-trial diversion a conviction for immigration purposes. – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/M5fWd

IJ gets case remanded

NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

-Antitrust and Trade Regulation-
Summary judgment in state court action, concluding that there was insufficient evidence presented by plaintiffs to allow a reasonable juror to find a conspiracy to limit supply and raise prices among several gasoline companies, precluded plaintiff’s antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, and district court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
William O. Gilley Enterprises, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Company – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 06-56059
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F06-56059

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
In determining whether extradition to a foreign country was barred by the statute of limitations, district court properly gave credence to the proceedings of that country and considered only the elapsed time between the date on which the crime occurred and the date foreign authority issued warrant for defendant’s arrest, even if that warrant was not akin to an indictment or information under U.S. law. Magistrate’s finding of probable cause to extradite defendant on murder charge was not clearly erroneous where sworn statements of eyewitnesses provided ample competent evidence that defendant likely shot and killed victim. Appellate court will not reweigh evidence on review of magistrate’s factual findings in an extradition case.
Crotte Sainez v. Venables – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-56398
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-56398

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court erred in rejecting defendant’s guilty plea to firearm charge–which defendant made in exchange for dropping charges relating to his involvement in smuggling undocumented aliens into the United States and holding them for ransom in a stash house–where court failed to state a reason for rejection. District court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during search of stash house because exigent circumstances supported a warrantless search where smugglers threatened physical harm to hostages if ransom was not paid, and ransom deadline was running out.
United States v. Mancinas-Flores – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10094
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-10094

-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court’s adoption of a procedure for the taking of pleas en masse to accommodate the enormous number of prosecutions for illegal entry into the United States violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that the court, before accepting a guilty plea, “address the defendant personally” and determine that defendant understood certain specified rights, risks, and consequences, and determine whether plea was voluntary. Defendants failed to show plain error necessary to reverse their convictions where they failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for the error, they would not have entered the plea.
United States v. Roblero-Solis – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-10396
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-10396

-Environmental Law-
Plaintiffs–who alleged that they had viewed polar bears and walrus in a specific region, enjoyed doing so, and had plans to return, and that certain regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service threatened imminent, concrete harm to these interests by destroying polar bears and walrus in that specific region, and that those regulations continued to be implemented–had standing to challenge the legality of the regulations. Where the United States Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated five-year regulations under Marine Mammal Protection Act Sec. 101(a)(5) that permit non-lethal “take” of polar bears and Pacific walrus by oil and gas activities in and along the Beaufort Sea on the Northern Coast of Alaska, conditioned upon service’s issuance of a “letter of authorization” to an individual oil and gas operator, facial challenge to the regulations was ripe, and plaintiffs were not required to challenge individual LOAs. Term “gas and oil exploration, exploration, and production activities” was not too broad to qualify as a specified activity as to which service may allow incidental take of wildlife under MMPA. Service’s finding that the taking of wildlife pursuant to regulations would have a negligible environmental impact was not arbitrary and capricious where service relied on scientific opinions that the combined effects of oil and gas operations on the weakened physical fitness of polar bears due to climate change was speculative. Evidence that global warming poses a generalized threat to polar bear populations did not demonstrate that non-lethal takes within a particular industry and during a particular period of time are likely to have significant impact, so service’s “no significant impact” finding under National Environmental Policy Act was not arbitrary and capricious. NEPA did not require service to prepare environmental impact statement, which regulations require when effects are “highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks,” where service relied on reasonable predictions based on prior data.
Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne – filed December 2, 2009
Cite as 08-35402
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1209%2F08-35402

-Immigration Law-
Immigration judge denied petitioner a full and fair hearing where judge unreasonably limited testimony on whether removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to petitioner’s four-year-old child, who was a U.S. citizen, and denied request for a continuance, prejudicing petitioner’s ability to present evidence in support of her application for cancellation of removal.
Rendon v. Holder – filed December 2, 2009

Cancellation of Removal is an option for people who have committed a crime and who have the Green Card.

Denial of petitions and removal are issued for drug conviction

Removal qualifications are clarified under new standards of of petitions. CA9 denied petition, finding conviction under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11379(a), qualifies for removal, so long as substance involved is determined to have been controlled substance under the modified categorical approach

New agreement with governmental departments to transfer parolees to be deported

In an effort to control the number of deported convicted parolees governmental agencies have come to a mutual agreement. The New Hampshire Department of Corrections announced the transfer of the first eligible parolees to the jurisdiction of ICE to be deported through a new agreement between NH and ICE under the Rapid REPAT (Removal of Eligible Parolees Accepted for Transfer) program. The government has seen an increase in eligible deportation parolees that would fall in to the REPAT program.

Should the Police keep all criminal records?

 In applying the modified categorical approach to assess an alien’s conviction, it is proper to consider the contents of police reports as part of the record of conviction if they were specifically incorporated into the guilty plea or were admitted by the alien during the criminal proceedings.

What is Hardship?

I-601 Approved on Emotional Hardship. There was no medical hardship. Client since entering the United States, the Applicant has never left. Applicant was convicted in 1999 of Violation of section 12500(A) VC(Unlicensed Driver). Sentenced to pay a fine of $82.00 plus a state penalty fund assessment of $153.00; Convicted in 1999 of violation of Section 16018 (A) VC(No proof of car insurance). Sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00. Applicant was also convicted in 2001 of Violation of Section 23152 (B) VC (.08% more weight alcohol Drive Veh). Placed on summary probation for a period of 036 months, served 48 hours in Los Angeles County jail less credit for 24 hours, pay a fine of $500.00 Applicant was convicted in 2000 of Petty theft. Imposition of sentence suspended and placed on informal probation for a period of 3 years, ordered to pay a fine of $300.00.

%d bloggers like this: