crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

Archive

After regularly updating crimmigration.com from January 2009 until November 2022, I have stopped doing so. I hope you continue to benefit from the blog as an archive. For up-to-date information about my work, visit ccgarciahernandez.com. – César

5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of reliance” on its existence rather than actual reliance

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that Carranza v. Holder, No. 11-60396, slip op. (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2012) (Davis, Smith, and Dennis, JJ.). Judge Dennis wrote the panel’s decision.

This case involved an LPR convicted after a jury trial in 1993, three years before Congress repealed § 212(c) relief through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). She was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Carranza was automatically pardoned in 1994 because this was her first drug offense; the conviction was expunged in 1999. Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 2.

First INS then DHS argued that she was removable, and the IJ agreed. The BIA affirmed and, in response to Carranza’s claim for § 212(c) relief, “noted that regulations limited eligibility for § 212(c) relief to aliens whose convictions were obtained by plea agreement prior to the enactment of IIRIRA.” Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 3. Relying on an earlier Fifth Circuit decision in Carranza’s case, this panel had no trouble moving past the question of whether her conviction after jury trial renders her ineligible; it doesn’t. As the panel put it, “we concluded in Carranza I [Carranza-De Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 2007)] that, pursuant to Hernandez-Castillo [v. Moore], 436 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2006)], an alien who was convicted after a jury trial must ‘demonstrate actual, subjective reliance on the pre-IIRIRA state of the law to be eligible for relief from its retroactive application.” Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 4.

Given that the IJ concluded that Carranza failed to show actual reliance and the BIA affirmed, this would have been an easy case had it not been for the “game-changer” that the Supreme Court announced in Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1479 (2012), to borrow the court’s characterization.

According to the Fifth Circuit’s reading of Vartelas, “[t]he Court explained that ‘the essential inquiry’ in determining whether a statute applies retroactively, ‘is whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.’” Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 8 (quoting Vartelas, 132 S. Ct. at 1491. Furthermore, “the Vartelas Court emphasized that the Court has never required a showing of reliance to demonstrate that a statute applies retroactively.” Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 9-10 (discussing Vartelas, 132 S. Ct. at 1490). Instead, “the Court’s language indicates that it does not require a showing of actual, subjective reliance, but rather only a showing of ‘likelihood of reliance on prior law.’” Carranza, No. 11-60396, slip op. at 9-10 (discussing Vartelas, 132 S. Ct. at 1491).

This is a significant change that benefits noncitizens. Instead of having to show that they actually relied on § 212(c)’s existence to put off seeking relief from removal, as the Fifth Circuit had previously required, Carranza suggests a much lower standard: a “likelihood” that they relied on the existence of § 212(c) relief. Under this standard, Carranza, the court concluded, was entitled to move forward with her request for § 212(c) relief.

Comments

  1. I’m currently working on a Motion to Reopen for an individual denied the opportunity to apply for 212(c) relief right after the law changed in 2001. He was detained, filed his motion to reopen pro se and the IJ in Houston decided that his motion was “untimely.” My client was deported and subsequently re-entered illegally after deportation. The memo clearly says that someone who is deported and reenters and ineligible, but it does not address IJ error.

    Reply

  2. , in Zhabei the town nine guhuai Village,

    Guoyang County is located in the north shore of Wohe distance the vortex North coal mine less than 1000 m. Not the village, reporters saw far rely on the few households on the housing wall of the Village head that says "dilapidated buildings&quot,streetretro; two bright red characters, after investigation that the village houses are included the dilapidated buildings range. The reporter also see in the village, many villagers the door closed,street retro, the external walls of their houses with different degrees of crack village road and you could see the deep cracks.

    "go to my house to look at,streetretro.com." learned that reporters come to interview, party villager surnamed side pulled arm side of the reporter describes the cracks of the wall of his house housing. Reporter saw in the homes of villagers in this main room is a two-story house, the side room is three bungalows and the main room together. Although the housing is new, but the house is covered with dust, and has been for a long time no one lived. On the walls of the main room was full of cracks, some cracks deep, penetrating a wall on the second floor of the floor tiles all Alice undulating. The side room on the platform the cracks deeper, wider, and you can put a hand.

    @$%asdoasd*&adoas({)
    Related articles:

    streetretro.com streetretro.com

    The 14-year-old boys in class scolded the teacher was labeled a perforated eardr

    Gay marriage the brothers against each other father and daughter Cheng Chou mar

    Reply

  5. back pain stretches

    Thanks for a marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you’re a great author.I will make certain to bookmark your blog and may come back later in life. I want to encourage you continue your great posts, have a nice morning!

    Reply

  20. electronic cigarette nicotine

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of r

    Reply

  21. human growth hormone booster

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of r

    Reply

  30. electronic cigarette juice

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of r

    Reply

  44. FAKE Oakley Jawbone

    This article is really dulcet, a friend gave me a look. I saw, I would like to express the feelings I looked. Others did not feel that I do not mind, at least now I express myself.

    Reply

  67. maillot du psg

    Crowd funding is an fascinating growth, and it will be intriguing to see in which it goes in the long term. Many thanks for the fascinating put up and hold up the excellent perform.

    Reply

  71. Fake Oakleys

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of reliance” on its existence rather than actual reliance

    Reply

  72. Oakley Fuel Cell

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of reliance” on its existence rather than actual reliance

    Reply

  73. ugg pas cher

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of reliance” on its existence rather than actual reliance

    Reply

  74. nike tn

    crImmigration.com: 5 Cir: 212(c) relief available after jury trial if able to show “likelihood of reliance” on its existence rather than actual reliance

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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.