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 »
Criminal Attorney must give consequences of deportation possibilities before Guilty Plea
Posted on April 7, 2010 by Brian D. Lerner | Edit
Rate This
Quantcast
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 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.
Criminal and Immigration lawyers should work together to help you
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration, Immigration Attorney, Immigration Lawyer | 1 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 »
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 »
In response to allegations regarding informational breaches in privacy, ICE published a Privacy Act notice of modification to an existing system of records for the Alien Criminal Response Information Management System of Records. Comments are due 3/26/10.
Alien criminal privacy act to undergo modification of records system
Filed under: Criminal Proceedings | Tagged: criminal, criminal alien, criminal aliens, criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration Attorney, Privacy Act | Leave a comment »
How long does immigration has to get someone from county jail after release? – Criminal Defense – Avvo.com http://ping.fm/BVMUe
Filed under: Criminal Laws and Procedures | Tagged: criminal, criminal alien, criminal aliens, criminal attorney, Criminal Charges, Criminal Defense, criminal history, criminal immigration, Criminal Laws and Procedures, criminal lawyer, criminal relief, criminal waiver, Immigration Attorney | Leave a comment »
Question: I have committed a crime, but do not know if I should plead guilty or not and if I do plead guilty, I do not know what I should plead to. Should I hire an Immigration Lawyer? Should I hire a Criminal Lawyer? Should I hire Criminal and Immigration Lawyers?
Answer: These are very valid questions. In fact, it is critical that you obtain the necessary information from criminal and immigration lawyers working together. Because you are not a U.S. Citizen, every single crime could potentially affect your ability to legally remain in the United States. Only if the criminal and immigration lawyers work together can you obtain the correct advice. An Immigration Lawyer is not an expert in Criminal Law and a Criminal Lawyer is not an expert in Immigration Law. Neither the Criminal Attorney or the Criminal Judge are aware of how your particular criminal situation will affect your immigration status. There is no reason to plea to something in criminal court that will only hurt your chances of remaining in the United States.
Question: How will the Criminal and Immigration Attorneys work together? What will they do to help me?
Answer: Generally, the Immigration Attorney can prepare the necessary criminal evaluation which will document to you and the criminal attorney exactly what is your immigration situation and the best alternatives for a plea that will have the least effect on your immigration status and will minimize the damage that could occur in future deportation hearings. Even if you get put into deportation or removal proceedings, the criminal and immigration lawyers working together will minimize the harm in deportation proceedings. It will have the effect of possibly making you eligible for certain forms of relief such as Cancellation of Removal for Lawful Permanent Residents or Adjustment of Status with a Waiver of Inadmissibility. Sometimes a guilty plea in criminal court will not sound so bad, but could make you an aggravated felon in Immigration Court. As an aggravated felon, you would not be eligible for most forms of relief. Thus, if the criminal and immigration lawyers work together in the beginning before you plea to anything, then everyone can benefit. You will minimize the harm done on your immigration status; the prosecutor will still get a conviction; the Criminal Judge will still be administering justice; the criminal attorney gets a plea and the immigration attorney protects you against unintended consequences. Thus, while it might be more expensive, the best route for you is to hire Criminal and Immigration Lawyers to work in tandem to help you through this process.
Question: What happens if I just plea guilty now as I am being told by my Criminal Lawyer that it is the best thing to do?
Answer: That would be a very large mistake. Basically, the Criminal Attorney is probably telling you that you will get less time and that it is the best deal that you can get. However, what does it matter if you get less time if you are simply transferred to immigration detention, placed in deportation proceedings and deported for many years or even the rest of your life? It is critical that you get the help of Criminal and Immigration Lawyers working together before you plea, not after. It is possible to try to set aside the plea afterwards. However, it is considerably more difficult.
Criminal and another conduct affecting Immigration
Criminal and immigration lawyer
Filed under: criminal attorney | Tagged: criminal attorney, criminal immigration, criminal lawyer, Immigration Attorneys, Immigration Lawyer | 30 Comments »
Immigration Lawyer
Brian D. Lerner Immigration Attorney & Deportation Lawyer Blog 