Case3:10-cr VRW Document11 Filed05/20/10 Page1 of 22

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case3:10-cr VRW Document11 Filed05/20/10 Page1 of 22"

Transcription

1 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of BARRY J. PORTMAN Federal Public Defender JODI LINKER Assistant Federal Public Defender th Floor Federal Building 0 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: ( -00 Counsel for Defendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Defendant. No. CR-0-0 VRW DEFENDANT S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT DUE TO UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION Hearing Date: July, 00 Time: :00 pm Court: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker

2 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. STATEMENT OF FACTS... III. ARGUMENT... A. MR. WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN HIS DEPORTATION PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE FAILED TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF, BY WHICH HE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED, RESULTING IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY FLAWED DEPORTATION ORDER.... ENTRY OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER AGAINST MR. ORTIZ- VALENCIA WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR... a. Mr. Due Process Rights Were Violated by the Defects in the Underlying Deportation Proceeding Because He Was Eligible for Relief from Deportation under INA Section (a and Was Not Advised of this Opportunity for Relief... b. Mr. Suffered Prejudice as a Result of the Defect in his Removal.... MR. HAS EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW... a. Mr. is Deemed to Have Exhausted his Administrative Remedies... b. Mr. Was Deprived of An Opportunity for Judicial Review... B. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT USE ANY SUBSEQUENT DEPORTATION OF MR. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SIMILARLY DEFECTIVE... IV. CONCLUSION... i

3 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Duran v. INS, F.d (th Cir.... United States v. Andrade-Partida, 0 F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal , 0, United States v. Arce-Hernandez, F.d (th Cir.... United States v. Arias-Ordonez, F.d (th Cir United States v. Arrieta, F.d 0 (th Cir , 0,, United States v. Chipres-Madriz, 00 WL (N.D.Cal United States v. Garcia-Martinez, F.d (th Cir United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, F.d 0 (th Cir , United States v. Lopez-Hernandez, 00 WL 0 (N.D.Cal United States v. Lopez-Menera, F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal , United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, U.S. (..., 0,, United States v. Muro-Inclan, F.d 0 (th Cir ,, United States v. Pallares-Galan, F.d 0 (th Cir ,, United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d 0 (th Cir ,,, U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW ii

4 Document Filed0/0/0 Page of FEDERAL STATUTES C.F.R..(a (... U.S.C. (h (..., U.S.C....,, U.S.C.... passim MISCELLANEOUS Brent S. Wible, The Strange Afterlife of Section (c Relief: Collateral Attacks on Deportation Orders in Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry After St. Cyr, U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW iii

5 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of BARRY J. PORTMAN Federal Public Defender JODI LINKER Assistant Federal Public Defender th Floor Federal Building 0 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: ( -00 Counsel for Defendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ANDRES Defendant. No. CR-0-0 VRW DEFENDANT S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT DUE TO UNLAWFUL DEPORTATION Hearing Date: July, 00 Time: :00 pm Court: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker TO: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF; AND JOSEPH RUSSONIELLO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; AND KATHRYN HAUN, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July, 00, at :00 p.m., before the Honorable 0 Vaughn R. Walker, defendant Andres will move this Court to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that as a matter of law, the government cannot establish that Mr. was previously deported within the meaning of U.S.C. because the deportation proceedings giving rise to the order of deportation were fundamentally flawed. This motion is based on the instant notice of motion, motion, and memorandum of points and authorities, supporting declarations, all other applicable constitutional, statutory, and case authority, and such evidence and argument as may be presented at the hearing of this motion. U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

6 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Andres is charged in a one count indictment with a violation of U.S.C., illegal reentry after deportation. The indictment against Mr. should be dismissed on the grounds that his prior deportations, as a matter of law, cannot constitute the prior lawful deportation order necessary for the government to establish the deportation element of a violation of U.S.C.. At the time of his deportation proceedings, Mr. was eligible for relief from 0 deportation, specifically, he was eligible to adjust his status under Section (a of the Immigration and Nationality Act with a commonly granted form of relief called a (h waiver. Nonetheless, the immigration judge ordered Mr. deported without notifying him of his right to seek relief from deportation. The immigration official overtly misadvised Mr. that he had no possibility of relief from deportation, ordered him removed, and deported him to Mexico. Mr. should not have been separated from his family and removed to Mexico as he was a green card holder, had a visa immediately available, and his removal would cause extreme hardship to his family. Through this error, the immigration service denied Mr. due process of 0 law, resulting in his unconstitutional deportation. There is no question that Mr. suffered prejudice from this error because he was in fact eligible for relief from deportation and was nonetheless removed to Mexico. Under these circumstances, the underlying deportation order cannot serve as a predicate for a prosecution for illegal reentry, thus, the indictment must be dismissed. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Mr. was born in Michoacan, Mexico in. Declaration of Andres (hereinafter Decl.,, attached to the Declaration of Jodi Linker (hereinafter Linker Decl. at Ex. A. When he was just nineteen years old (around

7 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of, he moved to the United States in order to make money to help support his family in Mexico. Id.,. He worked diligently while he was in the United States. He worked picking grapes in the fields in Healdsburg for three years, as a farm worker in the fields in Oregon for three years, and at a nursery in Oregon for five years. Id.,. Most recently, he worked delivering fish to stores and restaurants throughout Northern California for approximately fifteen years until he was arrested on the instant offense. Id. In, Mr. married his then-girlfriend, Elida Cruz. Id.,. Ms. Cruz was a United States Citizen. Birth Certificate of Elida Cruz, attached to the Declaration of Jodi Linker as Ex. D. On May 0,, Mr. became a lawful permanent resident of 0 the United States (a.k.a. green-card holder. Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. E. The couple had three children together: Andres Jr. (born, Michael (born, and Rosemary (born. in the United States and are citizens of the United States. Id. Decl.,. All three were born In November, Mr. was charged in Oregon with three felonies: one count of rape in violation of Oregon statute section., and two counts of sexual abuse in violation of Oregon statute section.. Oregon Indictment, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. F. He was convicted after a jury trial on all three counts and was sentenced on October, to a sentence of imprisonment not to exceed twenty years. Sentence after Trial and Conviction, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. G. 0 While Mr. was still in custody on that conviction, on August,, the immigration service issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing alleging that Mr. was subject to deportation under Section (a( of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter INA for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of entry and confined in a prison for a year or more. Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (hereinafter OSC, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. H. On August,, he appeared before Immigration Judge ( IJ Daniel Kahn for his U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

8 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of deportation proceeding. Transcript of Hearing, August,, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex I. At that time, he informed the IJ that he needed more time to retain counsel, so the IJ continued the hearing to provide him time to do so. Id. An amendment to the OSC was issued on August,. Motion and Order Amending Factual Allegation(s, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. H. On October,, Mr. appeared again before IJ Kahn. Transcript of Hearing, October, (hereinafter October th Hearing, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex J. The hearing was held at the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, 0 Pendelton, Oregon, where Mr. Bates AOV-0. At the hearing, Mr. was being held on his Oregon conviction. Id. at informed the Judge that his wife had been trying to retain an attorney for him, but she had not been able to do so. Id. at AOV-00-. The IJ did not give Mr. the option of having more time to retain a lawyer and simply went forward with the removal hearing without counsel for Mr. Id. The IJ questioned Mr. AOV Mr. directly about the allegations in the OSC. Id. at confirmed that he was a citizen of Mexico, not the United States; that he had a visa to be in the United States lawfully; and that he had been convicted of rape (although he denied that he was in fact guilty of that offense even though he had been convicted. Id. The IJ then said: Well sir, I have no alternative but to order your deportation to 0 Mexico. Id. at AOV-000. That was entirely incorrect since Mr. for relief from deportation. was eligible The IJ then continued questioning Mr. as follows: Q.... Tell me this, are you still married. A. Yes I have a wife and my children they re from here and my children have been born here. Q. How old are your children? A. The oldest is seven years old. Q. And is your..is your wife the mother of Roseann Cruz? A. Yes. Q. Did your wife testify against you in Court? A. No she was in my favor. Q. Who was against you? U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

9 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 A. The boyfriend of hers was the one that made up all this case. Q. How old is Roseann now? A. I m not sure exactly but I think around and years old. Q. I see. Well since this happened between and which is six years ago then she must have been about at the time. Anyway getting..sir if you think my decision is incorrect you may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Falls Church, Virginia, but if you think my decision is correct you will be..and if you accept it you may..no I m sorry if you think my decision is correct you may accept it as final and you will be deported to Mexico as soon as the people in Oregon are ready to release you. A. They haven t given me an opportunity I have been trying to contact my wife and she has letter that has been from a notary republic... Q. Sir if deportation should be necessary would Mexico be your choice? A. Yes, I m from there. Q. What do you want to do? Do you want to appeal my decision or do you want to accept it as final? A. Which..which decision? Q. Have you decided whether you wish to reserve appeal of my decision or whether you want to accept it as final? A. I want the appeal. JUDGE TO MR. GUSTAFSON Q. Mr. Gustafson would you please give him the forms. JUDGE TO MR. ORTIZ Q. To Mr Ortiz your appeal must be filed within ten days to the Executive Office for Immigration Review in Seattle, Washington. If it is not timely filed then I ll deem that you decided not to appeal and my decision will be final. Do you understand? A. Final, final how? Q. That means if you do not appeal them my order of deportation will go into effect. JUDGE TO MR. HOPKINS Q. Mr. Hopkins does the Service wish to appeal? A. No appeal. Q. Then this hearing is closed. Id. at AOV Although Mr. was eligible for relief from deportation, the IJ ordered Mr. deported to Mexico without ever advising him of that right. Order of the Immigration Judge (Bates AOV-00, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. K. Mr. filed a cursory notice of appeal on October,. Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. L. In his Notice of Appeal, he stated the following: I have been in the United States since or a total of years. My family is here. I have a wife and children who are all United States citizens. I have maintained continuous employment since being in the United States and I have a job waiting for me when I am released from here. U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

10 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page0 of Id. of Mr. On December,, the immigration service filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal appeal. Motion for Summary Dismissal, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. M. In that Motion, the immigration service acknowledged that Mr. had a U.S. Citizen spouse, but nonetheless wrongly asserted that there was no apparent relief from deportation. Id. at Bates AOV-00. The immigration service argued that the claim was frivolous and therefore should be summarily dismissed. Id. at Bates AOV-00. Sometime later, the appeal was dismissed. On August, and September,, Mr. wrote letters to the 0 immigration service requesting that he be permitted to remain in the United States so that he could be with his family. Letters from Mr. to the immigration service, attached to the Linker Decl. as Exhibit N. He never received a response to those letters and was subsequently deported from the United States to Mexico. The Order of the IJ from the October, flawed proceeding serves as the basis for his deportations from the United States. On January, 00, immigration agents came to Mr. home in Santa 0 Rosa, California and arrested him on the instant charge. The instant indictment was filed the following day. The IJ s Order of deportation from the flawed October, proceeding serves as the basis for his removal and the predicate for his instant prosecution under U.S.C. section. At no point before, during or after the immigration proceeding was Mr. informed of his eligibility for any relief from deportation. To the contrary, he was affirmatively mis-advised that he was not eligible for any type of relief. Having been misadvised by the IJ of his eligibility for relief, Mr. Ortiz-Valenzia s deportation proceeding was clearly flawed. U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

11 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of III. ARGUMENT 0 0 A. MR. WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN HIS DEPORTATION PROCEEDING BECAUSE THE IMMIGRATION SERVICE FAILED TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF, BY WHICH HE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY PREJUDICED, RESULTING IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY FLAWED DEPORTATION ORDER In general, in order to convict a defendant of violating U.S.C., illegal reentry after deportation, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: the defendant is an alien; the defendant was previously deported from the United States; and the defendant was found in the United States without the consent of the federal government. U.S.C. (a. As such, a defendant s prior deportation is a predicate element for a prosecution under U.S.C.. The United States Supreme Court has long established that a prior deportation order cannot serve as a predicate for a subsequent prosecution under U.S.C. when the deportation proceedings giving rise to the order were fundamentally flawed. See United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, U.S., (. The Supreme Court s holding is rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Constitution: if U.S.C. envisions that a court may impose a criminal penalty for reentry after any deportation, regardless of how violative of the rights of the alien the deportation proceeding may have been, the statute does not comport with constitutional requirement of due process. Id. at (emphasis in original. Accordingly, the Court held that a defendant in a prosecution pursuant to U.S.C. must be permitted to challenge the lawfulness of the prior deportation. Id. In Mendoza-Lopez, the defendants were arrested and deported after a group hearing at which they purportedly waived their rights to apply for suspension of deportation and to appeal. Id. at 0. They returned to this country, were once again arrested, and the government charged them with a violation of U.S.C.. Id. at. The underlying court found, and the Supreme Court accepted as true, that the Immigration Judge failed to adequately explain the defendants right to suspension of deportation or their right to appeal. Id. at 0. The Supreme U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

12 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 Court then held that because the Immigration Judge permitted waivers of the right to appeal that were not the result of considered judgments by [defendants], and failed to advise [defendants] properly of their eligibility to apply for suspension of deportation... the violation of [defendants ] rights... amounted to a complete deprivation of judicial review. Id. at. Thus, the government would not be permitted to rely on that prior deportation order as reliable proof of an element of the prosecution [b]ecause [defendants] were deprived of their rights to appeal and of any basis to appeal since the only relief for which they would have been eligible was not adequately explained to them.... Id. at,. The dismissal of the indictments against the defendants was required. Id. at. In response to the holding of Mendoza-Lopez, Congress amended U.S.C. to explicitly provide for a three part test for when a defendant can collaterally challenge a prior deportation in a prosecution under section : In a criminal proceeding under this section, an alien may not challenge the validity of the deportation order described in subsection (a( of this section or subsection (b of this section unless the alien demonstrates that-- ( the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; ( the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and ( the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. U.S.C. (d. To prevail on a collateral attack to a prior deportation on grounds that the deportation proceedings were fundamentally flawed, the defendant must meet each prong of the three-part test. See United States v. Pallares-Galan, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00 (citing U.S.C. (d. If a defendant succeeds in this three part test to collaterally attack the predicate deportation order, the indictment against him must be dismissed. See United States v. Chipres- Madriz, 00 WL (N.D.Cal. 00; United States v. Lopez-Menera, F.Supp.d 0, 0 (N.D. Cal. 00; United States v. Lopez-Hernandez, 00 WL 0 (N.D.Cal. 00; U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

13 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 United States v. Andrade-Partida, 0 F.Supp.d 0, (N.D. Cal ENTRY OF THE DEPORTATION ORDER AGAINST MR. ORTIZ- VALENCIA WAS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR Mr. collateral challenge to his deportation order meets each prong of this three-part test. Because the first and second prongs are informed by the third, the below analysis begins with the third prong, i.e., that the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair. An underlying removal order is fundamentally unfair if ( an alien s due process rights were violated by defects in the underlying deportation proceeding and ( he suffered prejudice as a result of the defects. Id. (citing United States v. Garcia-Martinez, F.d, 0 (th Cir As detailed below, Mr. was eligible for relief from deportation. Specifically, he was entitled to seek an adjustment of his status under INA (a with a waiver of his ground for inadmissability under INA (h. This common form of relief from deportation is usually referred to as simply a (h waiver. The Immigration Judge failed to advise Mr. of his eligibility for relief from deportation rendering the deportation proceeding fundamentally unfair. Had the immigration service properly advised Mr. of his eligibility for relief, it was more than plausible that he would have been granted relief and not deported back to Mexico. Accordingly, he suffered prejudice as a result of the defect in his immigration proceeding. a. Mr. Due Process Rights Were Violated by the Defects in the Underlying Deportation Proceeding Because He Was Eligible for Relief from Deportation under INA Section (a and Was Not Advised of this Opportunity for Relief During a deportation hearing, the requirement that an Immigration Judge inform an alien of any apparent eligibility for relief from deportation and give the alien the opportunity to pursue that form of relief is mandatory. See United States v. Arrieta, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 000 (quoting United States v. Arce-Hernandez, F.d, (th Cir.. An erroneous determination by an immigration official that the alien is statutorily ineligible for relief U.S. v. Ortiz-Valencia, Case No.0-0 VRW

14 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of from deportation also constitutes a denial of due process. Failure of the immigration official to inform the defendant of his eligibility for a waiver of deportation in the underlying proceedings establishes a violation of due process in a collateral appeal in a case brought under U.S.C.. See Arrieta, F.d at 0. The failure of the immigration official to advise an alien of his eligibility for a waiver of deportation violates the alien s due process rights and amount[s] to a complete deprivation of judicial review of the determination. Mendoza-Lopez, U.S. at 0. Even if the alien s eligibility is not clearly disclosed in the record, the IJ has a duty to discuss discretionary relief with the alien so long as the record as a whole raises a reasonable possibility of eligibility of such relief. Andrade-Partida, 0 F.Supp.d at. 0 Here, Mr. was eligible to apply for an adjustment of status in conjunction 0 with an application for a discretionary waiver of the inadmissibility ground that resulted from his conviction. See Declaration of Marc Van Der Hout (hereinafter Van Der Hout Decl.,, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. B. Specifically, under then INA Section (a, codified at U.S.C. Section (a, an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident if: ( the alien makes an application for such adjustment, ( the alien is eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is admissible to the United States for permanent residence, and ( an immigrant visa is immediately available to him at the time his application is filed. U.S.C. Section (a (, attached to the Linker Decl. as Ex. C. An immigrant visa was immediately available to immediate relatives of United States citizens, defined as children, spouses, and parents of a United States citizens. See INA Section 0(a, codified at U.S.C. Section (a & Van Der Hout Decl,. A person with a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude was not admissible for See United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d 0, 0-0 (th Cir. 00 (an inaccurate statement that an alien is ineligible for any relief constitutes a breach of the immigration judge s ( IJ duty and a violation of due process; see also United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00 ( The duty of the IJ to inform an alien of his eligibility for relief is mandatory, and the failure to do so constitutes a violation of the alien s due process rights. U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW 0

15 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 permanent residency under INA Section (a unless an application for a waiver was granted. Such a waiver, available under INA Section (h, codified at U.S.C. Section (h, allows an Immigration Judge to waive deportation for any alien who is otherwise excludable who: (A is the spouse or child, including a minor unmarried adopted child, of a United States citizen, or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B has a son or daughter who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, shall, if otherwise admissible, be issued a visa and admitted to the United States for permanent residence ( if it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that (A the alien s exclusion would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, or son or daughter of such alien, and (B the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States; and ( if the Attorney General, in his discretion and pursuant to such terms, conditions, and procedures as he may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien s applying or reapplying for a visa and for admission to the United States. U.S.C. (h (, attached to the Linker Decl., Ex. C. Thus, to qualify for a (h waiver, an applicant had to show that ( he is the spouse, child, or parent of a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident and ( his deportation would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse, parent, or children. Here, there is no doubt that Mr. was eligible for relief from deportation under INA Section (a with a (h waiver. Van Der Hout Decl., &. There is similarly no doubt that the IJ failed to advise him of that eligibility. The IJ had a duty to advise 0 Mr. Ortiz-Valencai of his right to seek relief, yet he failed to do so. Had Mr. advised of the availability of this form of relief, he most certainly would have applied for it. been Decl.,. Because he had a U.S. citizen wife and children all of which the IJ was well aware-of he had an immediately available visa to him. See Van Der Hout Decl., &. Additionally, his conviction for a crime of moral turpitude only made him inadmissible if he was unable to get a waiver under (h a waiver for which he was eligible. Id.,. His conviction in no way rendered him ineligible for a (h waiver. Indeed, only those who have convictions of crimes of moral turpitude making them deportable are in need of (h waivers. U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

16 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of It was designed precisely for this situation: where a non-u.s. citizen has a criminal conviction making him deportable, but because of the hardship that will result for his U.S. citizen family members he is allowed to remain here lawfully. The IJ informed Mr. that he had no alternative but to deport him to 0 Mexico. That was not at all true. [T]he IJ did have an alternative: he should have advised Mr. that he was eligible to apply for permanent residency again and provided him an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status as the spouse of a United States citizen with a waiver under INA (h. Id. The law is clear that an IJ has a mandatory duty to accurately advise an alien of his eligibility for relief. See Mendoza-Lopez, U.S. at 0; Arrieta, F.d at 0; Gonzalez- Valerio, F.d at 0. Mr. was clearly eligible for a form of relief and the Immigration Judge utterly failed to advise him of that. Indeed, the Immigration Judge overtly mis-advised Mr. by stating that he had no alternative but to deport him to Mexico. The IJ s failure rendered the deportation proceeding fundamentally unfair and violated Mr. due process rights. 0 b. Mr. Suffered Prejudice as a Result of the Defect in his Removal To satisfy a showing of prejudice, an alien does not have to show that he actually would have been granted relief. Instead, he must only show that he had a plausible ground for relief from deportation. See Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d at 00 (quoting Arrieta, F.d at 0. Although the Ninth Circuit has not defined the term plausible, this standard would seem to encompass borderline cases, perhaps even where the equities are in equipoise. Stated differently, it seems fair to interpret this standard as granting defendants in illegal entry cases the benefit of the doubt, even if they have a borderline claim of prejudice, as long as they establish that their deportation proceeding was procedurally deficient. Brent S. Wible, The Strange Afterlife of Section (c Relief: Collateral Attacks on Deportation Orders in Prosecutions for Illegal Reentry After St. Cyr, GEO. IMMIGR. L.J., (Summer 00. Thus, under applicable U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

17 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of law, Mr. need not show that he actually would have been granted relief, or even that there was a reasonable probability that he would have been granted relief. See United States v. Muro-Inclan, F.d 0, (th Cir. 00. A showing of plausible or possible granting of relief is sufficient. Here, there is no question that Mr. was prejudiced by the defect in his immigration proceeding: had the defect not occurred, he would have applied for and most likely received an adjustment of status under INA Section (a with a (h waiver allowing him to remain in the United States and not be deported to Mexico. Mr. Ortiz-Valenia need not show that he would have been guaranteed relief; it simply must be plausible that he could have done 0 so. Given Mr. circumstances at the time, there is no doubt that it was at least plausible that he would have been granted such a waiver. Under INA Section (a, Mr. was eligible for an adjustment of status if ( an immigrant visa was immediately available to him at the time his application is filed and ( he was eligible to receive an immigrant visa and was admissible to the United States for permanent residence. See INA Section (a, codified at U.S.C., Linker Decl., Ex. C & Van Der Hout Decl.,. It is more than plausible that he could have met each of these two prongs. First, an immigrant visa was immediately available to him because he was the spouse of a United States citizen. Van Der Hout Decl.,. Immigration expert Marc Van Der Hout 0 explains: At the time of his deportation hearing, Mr. was married to a United States citizen and accordingly, had he been advised of his eligibility for relief from deportation, could have had a visa petition filed by his wife and approved on his behalf and thereby, a visa immediately available. Id. Second, he was eligible to receive an immigrant visa and was admissible to the United States for permanent residence with a (h waiver. Van Der Hout Decl., &. As explained above, while his conviction made him deportable, a (h waiver made him U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

18 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of admissible to the United States. Id. In order to be granted a (h waiver he needed to show that his deportation from the United States would result in extreme hardship to his U.S. citizen family members. Mr. could have demonstrated that his U.S. Citizen wife and 0 three young U.S. citizen children would suffer extreme hardship if he were deported. To determine extreme hardship, the IJ would have weighed such factors such as the alien s age; the length of his residence in the United States; his family ties in the United States and abroad; his health; the economic and political conditions in the country to which he may be returned; his financial status, business, or occupation; and his immigration history. Van Der Hout Decl.,. Relevant factors, though not extreme in themselves, would be considered in the aggregate in determining whether extreme hardship exists. Id. Here, in, Mr. years, since. had been in the United States for approximately eleven Decl.,. He had a long and stable work history in the United States, working picking grapes in the fields in Healdsburg for three years, as a farm worker in the fields in Oregon for three years, and at a nursery in Oregon for five years. Id.,. In, he married a United States citizen, and therefore had a U.S. Citizen wife. Id.,. He had three young children, all of whom were United States citizens. Id. Specifically, at the time of his deportation proceeding, his son Andres Jr. was seven years old, his son Michael was five years old, and his daughter Rosemary was just two years old. Id. He also had a brother who was living lawfully in the United States, whom he saw regularly. Id.,. 0 Mr. was providing a substantial amount of income to his family, which they relied on to survive. Id.,. His wife was also working, and therefore, he was not only there for financial support, but also provided a great deal of invaluable emotional and noneconomic support to the family. Id., -. He had a deeply affection for his children and was absolutely distraught over the idea of being permanently separated from them. Id.,. He was the sole father figure to his children and thought it was very important for all of them to have a father in their lives. Id., 0. U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

19 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 Prior to his incarceration, he had been extremely active in the lives of his children. Id., -. He would do all of the things necessary to care for a child, and did so out of love. Id. He would get the children ready in the morning, take them to the park to play, eat meals with them, and generally provide emotional support for them and his wife. Id. Because his wife was also at work, he took equal responsibility in raising the children. Id.,. It is certainly plausible that he could have established that his deportation would disrupt his family unity at its core. According to Mr. Van Der Hout, Had Mr. Ortiz Valencia been given that opportunity [to apply for the (h waiver], it is very possible that such an application would have been granted. Id.,. Mr. Van Der Hout states that controlling precedent established such eligibility and supported such grants of relief. Id. Moreover, Mr. Van Der Hout attests that he represented many non-citizens in deportation proceedings in the late 0s and early 0s (and subsequently who had serious convictions but were granted adjustment of status with a waiver under INA (h or other similar forms of discretionary relief. After considering Mr. specific circumstances, Mr. Van Der Hout concludes that had Mr. been given the opportunity to apply for a (h waiver as he should have been his application stood a very good chance of being granted, especially in light of the presence of the U.S. citizen children. Id.,. Mr. circumstances at the time of his deportation proceeding demonstrate 0 that it was more than plausible that he would have been granted a (h waiver had the immigration official informed him of his eligibility for relief. The IJ did not informed Mr. of his eligibility for any form of relief from deportation. That was plainly wrong. The failure of the immigration service to advise Mr. in his deportation. Had it not been for the defect in Mr. of his eligibility for relief resulted deportation proceeding, he would not have been separated from his family, creating extreme hardship for all of them. Mr. thus suffered substantial prejudice: he was eligible to adjust his status U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

20 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page0 of under INA section (a with a (h waiver and it is more than plausible that he would have received relief from deportation had he been properly advised.. MR. HAS EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AND WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW Now that Mr. has satisfied the third prong of (d by showing that the 0 0 entry of the deportation order was fundamentally unfair, he next turns to the first and second prongs of the analysis: ( the exhaustion of any administrative remedies that may have been available; and ( the deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review. a. Mr. is Deemed to Have Exhausted his Administrative Remedies Although U.S.C. (d( requires that an alien exhaust all administrative remedies before a collateral attack will succeed, the exhaustion requirement cannot bar collateral review of a deportation proceeding when the waiver of right to an administrative appeal did not comport with due process. Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d at 0 (citing United States v. Muro-Inclan, F.d 0, - (th Cir. 00. The Due Process Clause requires that an alien s waiver of his right to appeal a deportation order be considered and intelligent. See id at 0; see also Mendoza-Lopez, U.S. at. An alien who is not advised of his rights cannot make a considered and intelligent waiver, and is thus not subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement of U.S.C. (d. See Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d at 0-00; Pallares, F.d at 0 ( Where the record contains an inference that the petitioner is eligible for relief from deportation, but the IJ fails to advise an alien of this possibility and give him an opportunity to develop the issue, we do not consider an alien s waiver of his right to appeal his deportation order to be considered and intelligent. (citing Muro-Inclan, F.d at (remaining citations omitted.. As such, under Ninth Circuit precedent, the undisputed failure of the IJ or any immigration official to correctly advise Mr. of his eligibility for a (h waiver and the affirmative statement that he was not eligible for any form of relief excuses Mr. from the administrative remedies exhaustion U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

21 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of requirement of his collateral attack under U.S.C. (d(. See Muro-Inclan, F.d at ; Lopez-Menera, F.Supp.d at 0. b. Mr. Was Deprived of An Opportunity for Judicial Review Because Mr. has a non-frivolous claim to a (h waiver, he was 0 similarly deprived of an opportunity for judicial review based on the defects in his immigration proceeding. Indeed, an immigration judge is obligated to advise an alien regarding apparent avenues for relief from deportation. See, e.g., Duran v. INS, F.d, - (th Cir. (citing C.F.R..(a (. When the official fails to so advise, the Ninth Circuit has held that aliens are deprived a meaningful opportunity for judicial review. See, e.g, Pallares-Galan, F.d at 0 ( For the same reasons [as those stated to find that Pallares waiver of appeal was procedurally defective] we hold that Pallares was deprived of a meaningful opportunity for judicial review ; see also Ubaldo-Figueroa, F.d at 00 (same; see also Andrade-Partida, 0 F. Supp d. at (finding that the IJ s failure to advise of section (c relief deprived the alien of judicial review. In this case, the defects in the immigration proceeding entirely deprived Mr. of the opportunity for judicial review. He was mis-advised of his rights, and thus had no basis for knowing that he had a legitimate basis to stay in this country. Mr. proceeding. thus meets this prong of a collateral attack on his deportation 0 B. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT USE ANY SUBSEQUENT DEPORTATION OF MR. BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SIMILARLY DEFECTIVE In the indictment, the government alleges that Mr. was deported on two occasions: first on October, and then on February, 0. It is unclear how the government asserts those dates as several documents in Mr. A-file indicate that he was in custody on his Oregon conviction until February 0, and deported for the first time on February, 0. Regardless, any subsequent deportation of Mr. similarly flawed as Mr. would be would have still been eligible for (h relief and was never advised of such relief in any proceeding. Had the IJ not committed the error at the October U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

22 Case:0-cr-000-VRW Document Filed0/0/0 Page of, hearing of failing to advise Mr. of his right to relief and overtly misadvising him that he had no rights to relief whatsoever, Mr. would not have been deported the first or second time, thus the due process violation from October, deportation proceeding taints any subsequent proceeding. See United States v. Arias-Ordonez, F.d (th Cir. 00. IV. CONCLUSION Mr. due process rights were violated through the deportation process: Mr. was eligible for an adjustment of status under INA Section (a with a 0 (h waiver since the record established that his wife was a U.S. citizen as were his three young children. The IJ, however, never mentioned this right to relief. Without this information, Mr. who was not represented by counsel, could not make a considered an intelligent decision about whether to apply for a Section (h waiver, and could not make a considered and intelligent decision about the basis for an appeal of the IJ s deportation order. 0 See Arrieta, F.d at 0. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. requests that this Court dismiss the indictment in the instant case. Dated: May 0, 00 Respectfully submitted, BARRY J. PORTMAN Federal Public Defender /s/ JODI LINKER Assistant Federal Public Defender respectfully U.S. v. Case No.0-0 VRW

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A Nau Velazquez-Macedo v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 1117145135 Case: 13-10896 Date Filed: 08/26/2013 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10896

More information

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL Pro Bono Training: The Essentials of Immigration Court Representation CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL Jesus M. Ruiz-Velasco IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS, LLP 203 NORTH LASALLE STREET, SUITE 1550 CHICAGO, IL 60601 PH:

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 07-3396 & 08-1452 JESUS LAGUNAS-SALGADO, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. Petitions

More information

Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510)

Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box Oakland, CA (510) Flor Bermudez, Esq. Transgender Law Center P.O. Box 70976 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 380-8229 DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW BOARD OF IMMGRATION APPEALS

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STTES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGN SOUTHERN DIVISION RTURO HERRER-FLORES, a/k/a rturo Flores-Morales, Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:05-CV-111 (Criminal Case No. 1:03:CR:200) UNITED

More information

Wright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned),

Wright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned), REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1078 September Term, 2014 JUAN CARLOS SANMARTIN PRADO v. STATE OF MARYLAND Wright, Arthur, *Zarnoch, Robert A., (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION -PJK Cuello v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Field Office Director of Doc. 10 Roberto Mendoza Cuello, Jr. Petitioner, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Bautista v. Sabol et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT A. BAUTISTA, : No. 3:11cv1611 Petitioner : : (Judge Munley) v. : : MARY E. SABOL, WARDEN,

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Junior Gonzalez, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 740 C.D. 2016 : Submitted: October 14, 2016 Bureau of Professional and : Occupational Affairs, : Respondent : BEFORE:

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. (Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2008) Docket No ag

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. (Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2008) Docket No ag 05-4614-ag Grant v. DHS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2007 (Submitted: December 12, 2007 Decided: July 17, 2008) Docket No. 05-4614-ag OTIS GRANT, Petitioner, UNITED

More information

ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Fox, JJ., concur

ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Division I Opinion by JUDGE ROMÁN Taubman and Fox, JJ., concur 12CA0378 Peo v. Rivas-Landa 07-11-2013 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 12CA0378 Adams County District Court No. 10CR558 Honorable Chris Melonakis, Judge The People of the State of Colorado,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JOSE ALFREDO PALLARES-GALAN, No. 02-10532 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-01-00309-KJD Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Case 1:08-cv VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:08-cv VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case 1:08-cv-07770-VM Document 16 Filed 03/11/10 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEIMEI LI, ) DUO CEN, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Civil Action No: 09-3776 v. ) ) DANIEL M.

More information

Screening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief. By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1

Screening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief. By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1 Screening TPS Beneficiaries for Other Potential Forms of Immigration Relief Background Information By AILA s Vermont Service Center Liaison Committee 1 When assisting a client with renewing their Temporary

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED. No v. GABRIELA CORDOVA-SOTO, REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED. No v. GABRIELA CORDOVA-SOTO, REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT Case: 14-50053 Document: 00512898670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2015 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED No. 14-50053 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GABRIELA

More information

Michael Bumbury v. Atty Gen USA

Michael Bumbury v. Atty Gen USA 2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-2-2010 Michael Bumbury v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-2014 Follow

More information

Administrative Removal Proceedings Manual (M-430, Rev. June 4, 1999)

Administrative Removal Proceedings Manual (M-430, Rev. June 4, 1999) Page 1 of 38 Administrative Removal Proceedings Manual (M-430, Rev. June 4, 1999) Detention and Deportation Officers' Manual Appendix 14-1 Table of Contents PREFACE I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose B. Historical

More information

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT

PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT CONCEPCION PADILLA-CALDERA, v. Petitioner, ALBERTO R. GONZALES,* United States Attorney General, Respondent. No. 04-9573 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 10-50176 Document: 00511397581 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 1, 2011 Lyle

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMANDO GUTIERREZ, AKA Arturo Ramirez, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-71788 Agency No. A095-733-635

More information

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, LORETTA LYNCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. RESTRICTED Case: 16-72269, 01/10/2017, ID: 10261504, DktEntry: 10-1, Page 1 of 40 Case No. 16-72269 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUMEI HUANG, Petitioner, v. LORETTA LYNCH,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 11-3582 HUSNI MOH D ALI EL-GAZAWY, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. On Petition for

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Raquel Castillo-Torres petitions for review of an order by the Board of

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Raquel Castillo-Torres petitions for review of an order by the Board of FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 13, 2010 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT RAQUEL CASTILLO-TORRES, Petitioner, v. ERIC

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0140n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0140n.06. No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0140n.06 No. 18-3493 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL VILLAFANA QUEVEDO, v. Petitioner, WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

More information

I. NON-LPR CANCELLATION (UNDOCUMENTED)

I. NON-LPR CANCELLATION (UNDOCUMENTED) BRIAN PATRICK CONRY OSB #82224 534 SW THIRD AVE. SUITE 711 PORTLAND, OR 97204 TEL: 503-274-4430 FAX: 503-274-0414 bpconry@gmail.com Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions November 5, 2010 I.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 8/4/2014 :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY. : O P I N I O N - vs - 8/4/2014 : [Cite as State v. Rivera, 2014-Ohio-3378.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2013-05-072 : O P I N I O N - vs -

More information

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:10-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 Case 1:10-cv-00039 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/23/10 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ALBERTO VASQUEZ-MARTINEZ, ) PETITIONER, PLAINTIFF,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSÉ GARCIA-CORTEZ; ALICIA CHAVARIN-CARRILLO, No. 02-70866 Petitioners, Agency Nos. v. A75-481-361 JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

More information

Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA

Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA 2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2002 Shahid Qureshi v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 01-2558 Follow

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Case 1:18-cv-10225 Document 1 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) LILIAN PAHOLA CALDERON JIMENEZ, ) ) Civ. No. Petitioner, ) ) ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF KIRSTJEN

More information

IMMIGRATING THROUGH MARRIAGE

IMMIGRATING THROUGH MARRIAGE CHAPTER 5 IMMIGRATING THROUGH MARRIAGE Introduction The process of immigrating through marriage to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (LPR) alien has so many special rules and procedures that

More information

Brian Wilson v. Attorney General United State

Brian Wilson v. Attorney General United State 2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-19-2016 Brian Wilson v. Attorney General United State Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016

More information

Case 3:17-cr SI Document 67 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Case 3:17-cr SI Document 67 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Case 3:17-cr-00431-SI Document 67 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAT QUOC DO, Case No. 3:17-cr-431-SI OPINION AND

More information

n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild

n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild n a t i o n a l IMMIGRATION p r o j e c t of the national lawyers guild PRACTICE ADVISORY: SAMPLE CARACHURI-ROSENDO MOTIONS June 21, 2010 By Simon Craven, Trina Realmuto and Dan Kesselbrenner 1 Prior to

More information

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL-ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS (Sec. 1229b.)

CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL-ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS (Sec. 1229b.) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. BAKER 435 NORTH LASALLE STREET * SUITE 300 * CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60610 PHONE: (312) 836-9040 FAX: (312) 644-3216 Website: http://www.callyourlawyers.com E-mail: mikebaker@callyourlawyers.com

More information

State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County. v. Case No. 2004CM Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea

State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County. v. Case No. 2004CM Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Milwaukee County State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2004CM009116 Pedro Mata, Defendant. Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea Now comes the above-named defendant, by

More information

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1 1 1 Jeremiah Johnson Johnson & McDermed, LLP 00 Montgomery Street, Suite 0 San Francisco, California Tel...0 Fax...0 jeremiah@jmcdlaw.com Counsel for Respondent DETAINED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

More information

Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States

Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States 2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-14-2015 Owen Johnson v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

More information

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. v. No

PUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. v. No PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT TENTH CIRCUIT OF APPEALS FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit JAN 6 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 02-2049 RICARDO

More information

No In the Supreme Court of the United States PETITIONERS

No In the Supreme Court of the United States PETITIONERS No. 03-878 In the Supreme Court of the United States PHIL CRAWFORD, INTERIM FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, PORTLAND, OREGON, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SERGIO SUAREZ

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) Petitioner/Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN ASHCROFT, as Attorney General of the ) United States; TOM RIDGE, as Secretary of the

More information

BUNTY NGAETH, Petitioner, v. 797*797 Michael B. MUKASEY, [*] Attorney General, Respondent. No

BUNTY NGAETH, Petitioner, v. 797*797 Michael B. MUKASEY, [*] Attorney General, Respondent. No BUNTY NGAETH, Petitioner, v. 797*797 Michael B. MUKASEY, [*] Attorney General, Respondent. No. 04-71732. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 13, 2008. Filed September

More information

PRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano

PRACTICE ADVISORY. April 21, Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano PRACTICE ADVISORY April 21, 2011 Prolonged Immigration Detention and Bond Eligibility: Diouf v. Napolitano This advisory concerns the Ninth Circuit s recent decision in Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081

More information

6/8/2007 9:42:17 AM SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XL:4

6/8/2007 9:42:17 AM SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XL:4 Immigration Law Nunc Pro Tunc Relief Unavailable Where Erroneous Legal Interpretation Rendered Alien Ineligible for Deportation Waiver Pereira v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2005) An alien convicted

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 1 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) GABRIEL RUIZ-DIAZ, et al., ) ) No. C0-1RSL Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED

More information

APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005

APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED: I-212s, 245(i) and VAWA 2005 The American Immigration Law Foundation 515 28th Street Des Moines, IA 50312 www.asistaonline.org PRACTICE ADVISORY APPLYING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS AFTER REENTERING THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT BEING ADMITTED:

More information

(4) Filing Fee: Payment of a $ 5.00 filing is required at the time of filing.

(4) Filing Fee: Payment of a $ 5.00 filing is required at the time of filing. Instructions for Filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon By a Person in State Custody (28 U.S.C. 2254) (1) To use this form, you must be a person

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Carl Shusterman, CA Bar # Amy Prokop, CA Bar #1 The Law Offices of Carl Shusterman 00 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 10 Los Angeles, CA 001 Telephone: (1 - Facsimile: (1-0 E-mail: aprokop@shusterman.com Attorneys

More information

Family-Based Immigration

Family-Based Immigration Family-Based Immigration By Charles Wheeler [Editor s note: This article is an adaptation of Chapters 1 and 2 of CHARLES WHEELER, FAMILY-BASED IMMIGRATION: A PRACTITIONER S GUIDE (2004), published by the

More information

Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein

Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein Adjustment of Status for T Nonimmigrants By Sarah Bronstein The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 created two new immigration benefits, T and U nonimmigrant status, in an effort

More information

The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law

The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law The Intersection of Immigration Law with CA State Law January 16, 2015 Raha Jorjani, Office of the Alameda County Public Defender Agenda Overview of Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions. Post-Conviction

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. Agency No. A Case: 13-12074 Date Filed: 03/13/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS PARULBHAI KANTILAL PATEL, DARSHANABAHEN PATEL, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

More information

These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017.

These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017. Linda Kenepaske Law Offices of Linda Kenepaske, PLLC 17 Battery Place, Suite 1226 These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12,

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI No. 16-1337 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DONTE LAMAR JONES, v. Petitioner, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari To the Virginia Supreme Court REPLY IN

More information

Screening Far and Wide

Screening Far and Wide Screening Far and Wide November 30, 2017 Panelists Dan Berger, Partner, Curran & Berger LLP Carmen Maquilon, Director, Catholic Charities Immigrant Services, Diocese of Rockville Centre Erin Quinn, Senior

More information

Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project

Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project Washington Defender Association s Immigration Project 810 Third Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: 360-732-0611 Fax: 206-623-5420 Email: defendimmigrants@aol.com Practice Advisory on the Vienna Convention

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-3288 LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent On Petition for Review

More information

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. In the Matter of: ) Brief in Support of N-336 Request

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES. In the Matter of: ) Brief in Support of N-336 Request UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES In the Matter of: ) Brief in Support of N-336 Request Petitioner: Jane Doe ) for Hearing on a Decision in A: xxx-xxx-xxx

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 2898 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, ANTWON JENKINS, v. Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court

More information

Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply?

Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Update: The LPR Bars to 212(h) To Whom Do They Apply? Katherine Brady, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 2014 1 Section 212(h) of the INA is an important waiver of inadmissibility based on certain crimes.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 09a0331p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AMWAR I. SAQR, v. Petitioner, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney

More information

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW IMMIGRATION COURT BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS Jeanne Brennan Funk New Hampshire Catholic Charities 261 Lake St. Nashua, NH 03060 Phone: (603 889-9431, ext. 14 Fax: (603 880-4643 jfunk@nh-cc.org UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 03-50315 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. CR-96-00433-SVW KWOK CHEE KWAN, aka Jeff Kwan, OPINION Defendant-Appellant.

More information

Case 3:07-cv WHA Document 17 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case 3:07-cv WHA Document 17 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case 3:07-cv-04759-WHA Document 17 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 8 IRAJ SHAHROK, ESQ. (CSB #49776) Iraj Shahrok Law Offices 572 Ralston Avenue Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 591-9604 (650) 591-6076 (Fax) Attorney

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No BIA No. A versus

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No BIA No. A versus [PUBLISH] YURG BIGLER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 05-10971 BIA No. A18-170-979 versus FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT March 27,

More information

Michael J. Goldstein Lucy G. Cheung

Michael J. Goldstein Lucy G. Cheung Michael J. Goldstein Lucy G. Cheung Law Offices of Eugene Goldstein & Associates 150 Broadway Suite 1115, New York, NY 10038 T: (212) 374-1544 F: (212) 374-1435 Eglaw@aol.com http://www.eglaw-group.com

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DEMARCUS O. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 15-CV-1070-MJR vs. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) REAGAN, Chief

More information

Intersection of Immigration Practice with other Areas of Law

Intersection of Immigration Practice with other Areas of Law Intersection of Immigration Practice with other Areas of Law The Chander Law Firm A Professional Corporation 3102 Maple Avenue Suite 450 Dallas, Texas 75201 http://www.chanderlaw.com By Vishal Chander

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIMANE TALL, Petitioner, No. 06-72804 v. Agency No. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney A93-008-485 General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition

More information

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 INSTRUCTIONS 1. You must use this

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv DLG. Case: 14-11084 Date Filed: 12/19/2014 Page: 1 of 16 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11084 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22737-DLG AARON CAMACHO

More information

Chapter 4 Conviction and Sentence for Immigration Purposes

Chapter 4 Conviction and Sentence for Immigration Purposes Chapter 4 Conviction and Sentence for Immigration Purposes 4.1 Conviction for Immigration Purposes 4-2 A. Conviction Defined B. Conviction without Formal Judgment C. Finality of Conviction 4.2 Effect of

More information

Case 1:17-cv JB-KBM Document 14 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Case 1:17-cv JB-KBM Document 14 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Case 1:17-cv-01258-JB-KBM Document 14 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 13 DANIEL E. CORIZ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Petitioner, No. 1:17-CV-01258 JB/KBM v. VICTOR RODRIGUEZ,

More information

USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman

USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman 2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2394 Follow this and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. BIA Nos. A & A Liliana Marin v. U.S. Attorney General Doc. 920070227 Dockets.Justia.com [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 06-13576 Non-Argument Calendar BIA Nos. A95-887-161

More information

Case 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 3:07-cr EDL Document 49 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 Case :0-cr-00-EDL Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN United States Attorney BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN Chief, Criminal Division WENDY THOMAS (NYBN 0 Special Assistant United States

More information

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15A04-1712-PC-2889 DANIEL BREWINGTON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court 2, No. 15D02-1702-PC-3,

More information

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2771 Mary Mwihaki Hamilton, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder,

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22413 March 29, 2006 Summary Criminalizing Unlawful Presence: Selected Issues Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 16-1033 WESCLEY FONSECA PEREIRA, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW

More information

SEALING OF RECORD OF CONVICTION (General Information)

SEALING OF RECORD OF CONVICTION (General Information) SEALING OF RECORD OF CONVICTION (General Information) Ohio Revised Code 2953.32 states that under certain qualifying circumstances, you are eligible to have your criminal record sealed. If you were convicted

More information

Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole

Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole 2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-25-2012 Christopher Jones v. PA Board Probation and Parole Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket

More information

NOS and IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NOS and IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NOS. 29314 and 29315 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES WAYNE SHAMBLIN, aka STEVEN J. SOPER, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE

More information

The NTA: Notice to Appear Kerry Bretz Bretz & Coven

The NTA: Notice to Appear Kerry Bretz Bretz & Coven These materials were originally submitted in conjunction with the program The Basics of Removal Defense held on June 12, 2017. The NTA: Notice to Appear Kerry Bretz Bretz & Coven These materials were originally

More information

Immigration Relief for Immigrant Survivors of Abuse [July 2017]

Immigration Relief for Immigrant Survivors of Abuse [July 2017] Immigration Relief for Immigrant Survivors of Abuse [July 2017] What kind of crime or abuse counts? Battery or extreme Sex or labor trafficking cruelty perpetrated by a USC or LPR spouse or parent or an

More information

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services Immigration Impact Unit 21 McGrath Highway, Somerville, MA 02143 ANTHONY J. BENEDETTI CHIEF COUNSEL TEL: 617-623-0591 FAX: 617-623-0936

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :-cv-0-dgc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Sherwin Johnson, vs. Petitioner, Randy Tracy, Chief Administrator, Gila River Indian Community Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision, Respondent. IN

More information

IMPACT OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS

IMPACT OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IMPACT OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS ERICH C. STRAUB ERICH@STRAUBIMMIGRATION.COM SARAH ROSE WEINMAN SWEINMAN@HEARTLANDALLIANCE.ORG American Bar Association - Immigration Pro Bono Training August 1, 2012 Chicago,

More information

CASE 0:14-cr ADM-FLN Document 118 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

CASE 0:14-cr ADM-FLN Document 118 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CASE 0:14-cr-00311-ADM-FLN Document 118 Filed 12/19/17 Page 1 of 7 United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OPINION v. AND ORDER Criminal No. 14-311

More information

Upon arrival into the United States, non-citizens are categorized as either

Upon arrival into the United States, non-citizens are categorized as either Introduction to Immigration Law By Professor Arthur C. Edersheim Esq. Upon arrival into the United States, non-citizens are categorized as either immigrants or non-immigrants. Immigrants come to the United

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Appellee, No v. N.D. Okla. JIMMY LEE SHARBUTT, ORDER AND JUDGMENT * UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 12, 2008 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, No. 07-5151 v. N.D.

More information

Bond/Custody. I. Overview. A. Application Before an Immigration Judge. B. Time. C. Subsequent Hearing. D. While a Bond Appeal is Pending

Bond/Custody. I. Overview. A. Application Before an Immigration Judge. B. Time. C. Subsequent Hearing. D. While a Bond Appeal is Pending Bond/Custody I. Overview A. Application Before an Immigration Judge B. Time C. Subsequent Hearing D. While a Bond Appeal is Pending E. Non-Mandatory Custody Aliens F. Mandatory Custody Aliens G. An Immigration

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY. STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI AT LIBERTY STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Plaintiff ) ) VS ) Case No. ) ) Defendant ) PETITION TO ENTER PLEA OF GUILTY The defendant represents to the Court: 1. My

More information

WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. House Bill 2657

WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. House Bill 2657 WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE 2017 REGULAR SESSION Introduced House Bill 2657 BY DELEGATE MILEY [By Request of the Executive] [Introduced February 22, 2017; Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.] 1 2

More information

Circuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED. Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,

Circuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED. Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur, Circuit Court for Washington County Case No.:17552 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1994 September Term, 2017 ANTHONY M. CHARLES v. STATE OF MARYLAND Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Arthur,

More information

Lloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States

Lloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States 2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-6-2015 Lloyd Pennix v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

More information

ARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES.

ARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES. ARTICLE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES AND SECOND CHANCES: APPELLATE LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN REINSTATEMENT CASES Shuting Chen ABSTRACT This Article underscores the challenges faced by undocumented

More information

CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal

CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal CHAPTER 2 Inadmissibility, Deportability, Waivers, and Relief from Removal It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive. Chief Justice Earl Warren OVERVIEW The power to determine who

More information

Case 1:10-cr LEK Document 425 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1785 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 1:10-cr LEK Document 425 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1785 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Case 1:10-cr-00384-LEK Document 425 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1785 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, ROGER CUSICK CHRISTIE

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: 2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-28-2015 USA v. John Phillips Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

More information