• 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

Court Finds California Felony Conviction Reclassified as a Misdemeanor Retains Its Immigration Consequences

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the petitioner’s felony conviction for Possession of Marijuana for Sale under California Health & Safety Code §11359 rendered the petitioner removable, even though the conviction had been recalled and reclassified as a misdemeanor under California’s Proposition 64. The court explained that valid state convictions retain their immigration consequences even when modified or expunged for reasons of state public policy.

l: Court Finds BIA Erred in Barring Cancellation and Asylum Applications of Petitioner Convicted Under NY Penal Law §220.31

The Second Circuit granted in part the petition for review, holding that the BIA should have applied the categorical approach to determine whether the petitioner’s N.Y. Penal Law §220.31 conviction was an aggravated felony under the INA, because §220.31 defines a single crime and is therefore an indivisible statute. Applying the categorical approach, the court concluded that the petitioner’s conviction under N.Y. Penal Law §220.31 did not constitute a drug-trafficking aggravated felony and thus did not bar the petitioner from seeking cancellation of removal and asylum.

IA Says Probationary Confinement in Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Is “Term of Confinement”

  1. BIA Says Probationary Confinement in Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Is “Term of Confinement”
    In a published decision issued today, the BIA held that a term of confinement in a substance abuse treatment facility imposed as a condition of probation constitutes a “term of confinement” under INA §101(a)(48)(B) for purposes of determining if an offense is a crime of violence under INA §101(a)(43)(F).

What is a ‘controlled substance’ for removal purposes

Supreme Court Holds That Only Substances Defined as “Controlled” Under §802 Trigger Removal

The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, finding that INA §237(a)(2)(B)(i) triggers removal only when the government can prove a connection between an element of an immigrant’s drug conviction and a “controlled substance” as defined in 21 USC §802.

%d bloggers like this: