crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

4 Cir: Inconclusive record of conviction fails Cancellation burden

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that an LPR failed to meet his burden of proof to show that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony because the record of conviction was inconclusive on this point. Salem v. Holder, No. 10-1078, slip op., 2011 WL 1998330 (4th Cir. May 24, 2011) (Traxler, King, and Diaz, J.). Judge Diaz wrote the panel’s decision.

This case involved an LPR who was convicted of petit larceny, Va. Code Ann. 18.2-96, among other offenses. He conceded removal for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), but denied that his petit larceny offense constituted a theft or burglary type of aggravated felony, INA § 101(a)(43)(G). Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 3.

The IJ determined that DHS did not meet its burden of showing that Salem’s petit larceny offense constituted an aggravated felony. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 3. The IJ also concluded that Salem failed to meet his burden of showing that he was eligible for Cancellation because he “presented no evidence to establish that his larceny conviction was for conduct falling outside the scope of the INA’s definition of an ‘aggravated felony.’” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 4. The BIA affirmed.

The Fourth Circuit began by noting that removal followed by relief from removal in the form of Cancellation involves a burden-shifting process. First, the government bears the burden of showing that the LPR is removable. After the government meets that burden, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that she is eligible for Cancellation. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 4-5. Indeed, INA § 240(c)(4)(A) and 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d), which the Fourth Circuit cites, provide that the burden is on the respondent to show eligibility for relief. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 5.

The court then turned to the core issue presented by this case: how much evidence must a respondent present to meet this burden? The Fourth Circuit noted that there exists a circuit split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit held in 2009 that an inconclusive record of conviction does not satisfy the respondent’s burden to show eligibility for Cancellation. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 7 (discussing Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2009)).

In contrast, the Second and Ninth Circuits “have held that a noncitizen satisfies his burden of proving that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony—and thus remains eligible for cancellation of removal—simply by proffering an inconclusive record of conviction.’” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 7-8 (discussing Martinez v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 113, 122 (2d Cir. 2008) and Sandoval-Lua v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 1121, 1130 (9th Cir. 2007)).

The Fourth Circuit left no doubt about which side of the circuit split it chose: “We conclude that the Tenth Circuit’s approach hews more closely to the relevant statutory text.” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 8. As the court explained, “Presentation of an inconclusive record of conviction is insufficient to meet a noncitizen’s burden of demonstrating eligibility, because it fails to establish that it is more likely than not that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. In such a case, fidelity to the INA requires that the noncitizen, as the party bearing the burden of proof, suffer the detriment.” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 8.

Here, Salem submitted only his state record of conviction involving a divisible statute in an effort to meet his burden. Because the record of conviction was inconclusive, the court determined that he failed to meet his burden of showing that he was eligible for cancellation. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 8-9.

It remains unclear what exactly a respondent would need to do to satisfy the Cancellation eligibility burden. This case cautions attorneys that relying on the record of conviction alone is insufficient, at least in the Fourth Circuit.

Importantly, the Fourth Circuit expressed reluctance to extend the categorical approach to statutory interpretation to relief. Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 12-13. Though the categorical approach is appropriate in determining removal, the court explained, “we are reluctant to extend application of the categorical approach to the immigration relief context given the uniqueness of the INA’s burden-shifting regime.” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 13.

Lastly, in what appears to be needless dicta, the court suggested that its holding is justified because relief from removal is less severe than criminal punishment. “It bears repeating,” the court wrote, “that Salem was not in the dock facing criminal sanctions, but instead sought the government’s largesse to avoid removal.” Salem, No. 10-1078, slip op. at 13.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on June 28, 2011 on 9:00 am 15 Comments
Filed Under: 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, cancellation of removal

Comments

  1. Tom Tousley says

    June 29, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Thanks again for keeping us informed. I briefed this case for the alien before the 4th Circuit. ICE submitted the plea colloquy during removal proceedings which showed that the alien took an Alford plea and did not admit to any of the facts alleged by the prosecutor. In addition, there were no other documents outside of the “record of conviction” that the alien could have submitted to the Immigration Judge. I argued before the 4th Circuit that requiring the alien to submit evidence not allowed to be considered under the modified categorical analysis created an impossible burden of proof for the alien to meet. But as you stated, the 4th Circuit clearly rejected my argument, expressing doubt that the Supreme Court would require that the modified categorical analysis should be applied in the relief context. I urge other attorneys to challenge Immigration Judges that do not sustain the aggravated felony charge, but then find that an LPR failed to disprove that he was not convicted of an aggravated felony, thereby pretermitting the application for cancellation of removal for an LPR. The Immigration Judge’s action effectively does through the back door what ICE couldn’t do through the front door. This issue still has not been resolved in a number of circuits or the Supreme Court, so attorneys should assert the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit and of the 9th Circuit that such aliens are not barred from applying for cancellation of removal under the reasoning of Taylor and Shepard etc.

    Reply
  2. Yahir Gump says

    December 2, 2011 at 2:15 am

    Yahir Gump

    Looking forward to reading more. Great post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.

    Reply
  3. Angeline Harvell says

    December 3, 2011 at 12:45 am

    Angeline Harvell

    I cannot thank you enough for the blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

    Reply
  4. Kailyn Piatt says

    December 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Kailyn Piatt

    I loved your article post. Cool.

    Reply
  5. Quinton Scates says

    December 19, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Quinton Scates

    Very good article. Will read on…

    Reply
  6. Reagan Dodd says

    January 2, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Reagan Dodd

    Major thanks for the blog article. Cool.

    Reply
  7. Alisha Doster says

    January 2, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Alisha Doster

    I appreciate you sharing this blog article.Much thanks again. Keep writing.

    Reply
  8. http://casinoonlineukcasinos.co.uk says

    April 26, 2013 at 5:14 am

    http://casinoonlineukcasinos.co.uk

    crImmigration.com: 4 Cir: Inconclusive record of conviction fails Cancellation burden

    Reply
  9. payday loans says

    May 4, 2013 at 8:50 pm

    payday loans

    Thanks, this is the worst factor I’ve study

    Reply
  10. Payday Loans says

    May 5, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Payday Loans

    I can’t subscribe for your channel

    Reply
  11. FakE OaklEyS says

    May 14, 2013 at 4:18 am

    FakE OaklEyS

    This article made me become shiny. After doing some reading of this article, I impressed a lot. I will concern your blog. I hope everyone like me herereap happy, reap moved.

    Reply
  12. fake Oakley Antix says

    July 5, 2013 at 5:55 am

    fake Oakley Antix

    If you are going for finest contents like myself, just visit this web site every day since it gives feature contents, thanks

    Reply
  13. Cheap Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 13, 2013 at 7:34 am

    Cheap Oakley Sunglasses

    Thankfulness to my father who shared with me on the topic of this weblog, this web site is in fact awesome.

    Reply
  14. Sac Longchamp Pas Cher says

    July 31, 2013 at 11:10 am

    Sac Longchamp Pas Cher

    crImmigration.com: 4 Cir: Inconclusive record of conviction fails Cancellation burden

    Reply
  15. uggs outlet online says

    December 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    uggs outlet online

    ugg hazelwood review

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says Biden can end MPP
  • Uvalde massacre & immigration law aid
  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.