• 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 Felony

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.

Aggravated felony

Aggravated felonies

Aggravated felony meaning

Aggravated felon gets proceedings terminated

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

Adjustment of Status under Conditional Parole

BIA held that an alien released from custody on conditional parole under INA § 236(a)(2)(B) has not been “paroled into the United States” for purposes of establishing eligibility for adjustment of status under §245(a).

Adjustment of status 

Conditional parolee not eligible for adjustment of status

AOS and immigration

AOS process

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.

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.

MTR meaning

Motion to reopen

Is there any possibility?

Motion to reopen granted

BIA finding that the antique firearm exception is an affirmative defense in removal proceedings

BIA vacated and remanded, finding that in removal proceedings, the antique firearm exception is an affirmative defense that must be sufficiently raised by an alien charged under INA § 237(a)(2)(C).

Removal proceedings

Deportation or removal hearings

Removal Attorney near me

Get a deportation Lawyer

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