Assault with a deadly weapon or force likely to produce great bodily injury under California law is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. Ceron v. Holder, 747 F.3d 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), distinguished
Crime involving Moral turpitude
Filed under: Crimes of Moral Turpitude | Tagged: assault, cimt, cmt, crime, crime involving moral turpitude, crime of moral turpitude, crimes, criminal, criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer | Leave a comment »
Criminal relief and what is a conviction
Filed under: criminal relief | Tagged: alien criminal, crimes, criminal, criminal alien, criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, criminal relief, post conviction, post conviction relief | Leave a comment »
Post Conviction Relief granted. Lawful Permanent Resident went from having an Aggravated Felony drug conviction to a conviction that is neither an Aggravated Felony or Crime Involving Moral Turpitude. Client can now apply to renew his Green Card and apply for Naturalization/Citizenship without the fear of deportation.
Filed under: Immigration Attorney | Tagged: alien criminal, criminal, criminal relief, post conviction, post conviction relief | Leave a comment »
Naturalization case approved for case with a long history before the Immigration Court that administratively closed in 2006 and then recalendared and terminated based on Client’s eligibility for Naturalization Client has a conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a minor (possibly an aggravated felony) but still qualifies for Naturalization.
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/expedited-naturalization/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/naturalization/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/naturalization-fee-increase/
https://californiaimmigration.us/citizenship/naturalization/
Filed under: Naturalization | Tagged: aggravated felony, criminal, lewd and lascivious conduct, Naturalization | Leave a comment »
Criminal and Other Conduct Affecting Discretionary Cases in Immigration Court – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/NgrMr
Discretionary waiver authority
Discretionary waiver authority
Immigration reform update gives hope to millions even with criminal history
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: criminal, criminal alien, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Crimes, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Particular Types of Crimes of Moral Turpitude in Deportation or Removal Hearings – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/hzcVl
How one analyzes crimes in immigration
Filed under: Crimes of Moral Turpitude | Tagged: Brian D. Lerner, crime involving moral turpitude, Crimes of Moral Turpitude, criminal, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Deportation or Removal Hearings, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner | Leave a comment »
Criminal Attorney must give consequences of deportation possibilities before Guilty Plea
Up until now, an Immigration Attorney would have a very difficult time trying to get post conviction relief for a criminal alien who plead guilty to some crime, was ordered deported and whereby the Immigration Attorney would try to get post conviction relief to give the foreign national an opportunity to try to beat the deportation. Almost always, the Criminal Courts would claim that immigration consequences are collateral to the main guilty plea, and because of that, whether they knew or not, a person could make a guilty plea and it would be knowingly even though they were not given proper advice by the criminal attorney, or no advice at all regarding the fact the person might be deported. This does not have to do with criminal law, but immigration law.
On March 31, 2010 the United States Supreme Court has decided that it is not correct, fair or equitable to deport someone who was not given the proper advisals and that all of the prior cases from lower courts stating differently are wrong. This is a very big case for an immigration attorney who will now have some real ammunition to use when trying to do post-conviction relief. The U.S. Supreme Court basically states that because of the drastic measure of deportation or removal is virtually inevitable for a vast number of non citizens or residents convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for non citizens accused of crimes has never been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on noncitizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. The case is known as Padilla vs. Kentucky. Basically, before this case, the Strickland case was used to determine whether there was effective legal counsel on this type of matter or not. However, the courts below would use the argument that since it was collateral, it could not be used against an attorney who gave the wrong advice. Being an Immigration Attorney, I never agreed with or understood how it could be ‘collateral’. If a person plead guilty to a particular crime and got a shorter sentence in criminal jail, what was the use if he was deported the rest of his life from the U.S. Finally, we have a case that addresses the reality of this issue. It would be necessary to show that the outcome would be different if the correct advice were given and that the attorney fell below the reasonable standard of care. It if is truly clear that deportation will ensue, then the consequences must be equally clear.
Since there are so many aggravated felonies as any Immigration Attorney will tell you, if the plea is that of an aggravated felony, or one that could be considered to be an aggravated felony, the criminal attorney must be very clear to the defendant that deportation will follow.The case correctly states that now the immigration laws are much more severe and it is much more likely for someone to get a deportation order based upon a crime. In the past, which a typical immigration attorney will agree, there were not nearly as many aggravated felonies or ways of getting deported or removed from the U.S. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that a person should not be deported because of incompetent counsel.
Therefore, if you are a criminal defendant and are about to plea, be sure to let your criminal attorney know about this case. Alternatively, contact a knowledgeable immigration attorney to work with the criminal attorney on this matter to best protect you. If you have already plead guilty, I would still contact an immigration attorney to try to get post conviction relief under this new case. Even if you are in deportation proceedings or have an order of deportation, you should contact a qualified immigration attorney to prepare the necessary post conviction relief if you qualify.
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/criminal/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-attorney/
https://cbocalbos.wordpress.com/tag/criminal-immigration/
https://californiaimmigration.us/criminal-and-immigration-lawyers-must-work-together-to-help-you/
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: consequences of guilty plea, criminal, criminal alien, criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | 4 Comments »
Criminal Attorney must give consequences of deportation possibilities before Guilty Plea
Up until now, an Immigration Attorney would have a very difficult time trying to get post conviction relief for a criminal alien who plead guilty to some crime, was ordered deported and whereby the Immigration Attorney would try to get post conviction relief to give the foreign national an opportunity to try to beat the deportation. Almost always, the Criminal Courts would claim that immigration consequences are ‘collateral’ to the main guilty plea, and because of that, whether they knew or not, a person could make a guilty plea and it would be ‘knowingly’ even though they were not given proper advice by the criminal attorney, or no advice at all regarding the fact the person might be deported.
On March 31, 2010 the United States Supreme Court has decided that it is not correct, fair or equitable to deport someone who was not given the proper advisals and that all of the prior cases from lower courts stating differently are wrong. This is a very big case for an immigration attorney who will now have some real ammunition to use when trying to do post-conviction relief. The U.S. Supreme Court basically states that because of the drastic measure of deportation or removal is virtually inevitable for a vast number of non citizens or residents convicted of crimes, the importance of accurate legal advice for non citizens accused of crimes has never been more important. Thus, as a matter of federal law, deportation is an integral part of the penalty that may be imposed on non citizen defendants who plead guilty to specified crimes. The case is known as Padilla vs. Kentucky. Basically, before this case, the Strickland case was used to determine whether there was effective legal counsel on this type of matter or not. However, the courts below would use the argument that since it was collateral, it could not be used against an attorney who gave the wrong advice. Being an Immigration Attorney, I never agreed with or understood how it could be ‘collateral’. If a person plead guilty to a particular crime and got a shorter sentence in criminal jail, what was the use if he was deported the rest of his life from the U.S. Finally, we have a case that addresses the reality of this issue. It would be necessary to show that the outcome would be different if the correct advice were given and that the attorney fell below the reasonable standard of care. It if is truly clear that deportation will ensue, then the consequences must be equally clear.
Since there are so many aggravated felonies as any Immigration Attorney will tell you, if the plea is that of an aggravated felony, or one that could be considered to be an aggravated felony, the criminal attorney must be very clear to the defendant that deportation will follow. The case correctly states that now the immigration laws are much more severe and it is much more likely for someone to get a deportation order based upon a crime. In the past, which a typical immigration attorney will agree, there were not nearly as many aggravated felonies or ways of getting deported or removed from the U.S. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that a person should not be deported because of incompetent counsel.
Therefore, if you are a criminal defendant and are about to plea, be sure to let your criminal attorney know about this case. Alternatively, contact a knowledgeable immigration attorney to work with the criminal attorney on this matter to best protect you. If you have already plead guilty, I would still contact an immigration attorney to try to get post conviction relief under this new case. Even if you are in deportation proceedings or have an order of deportation, you should contact a qualified immigration attorney to prepare the necessary post conviction relief if you qualify.
https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/criminal-attorney/
https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/criminal/
https://atomic-temporary-10880024.wpcomstaging.com/tag/criminal-charges/
https://californiaimmigration.us/criminal-and-immigration-lawyers-must-work-together-to-help-you/
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: criminal, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Crimes, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Another case just issued regarding the Immigration Judge:
NINTH U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
A challenge to a restitution order by a custodial state prisoner who does not challenge the lawfulness of his custody under federal law is insufficient for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. Physical custody alone is insufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Bailey v. Hill – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-35450
Full text http://ping.fm/Zqfep
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
Word “person” in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1028A(a)(1) refers to both living and deceased persons. Statute does not require government to prove defendant used the identification of a person he knew to be alive at the time defendant stole that person’s identity.
United States v. Maciel-Alcala – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-50038
Full text http://ping.fm/Gx6uk
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
A district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release. Where defendant violated concurrent terms of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3624(e) did not prohibit district court from imposing consecutive sentences of imprisonment.
United States v. Xinidakis – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 09-50307
Full text http://ping.fm/kYMhs
-Criminal Law and Procedure-
District court did not err in subjecting state’s parole revocation hearings to balancing test weighing a releasee’s interest in his constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against government’s good cause for denying it. Even if hearsay falls within a recognized exception, it is still subject to balancing as an indicia of reliability and subject to good cause analysis. Balancing test does not elevate the due process rights of parolees to those of criminal defendants. Conditional due process rights of parolees can be justifiably denied–and hearsay can be admitted–if government’s good cause is sufficient. Hearsay used to corroborate other hearsay remains subject to balancing test. Where state had not fully complied with requirements of an earlier injunction, district court had “ample authority to go beyond earlier orders” to ensure compliance. Special master did not use judicial notice to bypass the process of authenticating documents on which he relied where authenticity of those documents was not challenged by either party. Master’s findings based on observations by employees and observers–statements made with personal knowledge that were not made out-of-court–were not based on inadmissible hearsay. Where a state law is found to conflict with a federal injunction, federalism principles require reconciliation of the state law and federal injunction unless that state law violates a federal law or the injunction is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation.
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger – filed March 25, 2010
Cite as 08-15889
Full text http://ping.fm/tA5uT
-Immigration Law-
Immigration judge had no authority to grant alien a form of interim visa relief that was previously made available to immigrant victims of crime. Only U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had jurisdiction over alien’s request for interim relief.
Criminal and immigration lawyer must work together to help you
Filed under: Criminal Laws and Procedures | Tagged: criminal, criminal attorney, Criminal Laws and Procedures, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Can I reopen a dismissed case? – Criminal Defense – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/NxpfH
My crime was vacated, now what?
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: crime of violence, crimes, criminal, Criminal Defense, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, criminal relief, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Crimes, Immigration Lawyer | Leave a comment »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 