crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

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

Don’t tie immigration law reform to El Paso attack

When Donald Trump used the latest gun massacre to urge support for his pet project, clamping down on migration, no one could be surprised. His path to the presidency, like his time in office, is paved with anti-migrant fear-mongering. Already his reelection campaign has embraced the specter of a migrant invasion, and at a campaign rally he entertained fantasies about shooting migrants. Clearly, President Trump is driving the United States toward a new low. But disturbing as it is, in tying immigration law reform to domestic terrorism, he is not carving a new path. A quarter-century ago, the [...]

Posted by César on August 27, 2019 on 4:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: § 212(c), aggravated felony, IIRIRA

Justice Scalia’s Crimmigration Legacy

Andrea Sáenz Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent passing has spurred a wealth of commentary about his career and legal philosophy, including the recognition that the legendary conservative jurist issued a number of rulings sympathetic to criminal defendants [see here, here, or here]. What have attracted less notice so far are his consistent votes for noncitizens in cases involving the immigration consequences of criminal convictions, or for defendants in cases involving the sentencing consequences of prior convictions. In both types of cases, Scalia was an extremely reliable vote [...]

Posted by César on February 16, 2016 on 4:00 am 4 Comments
Filed Under: § 212(c), ACCA, categorical approach, guest blogger, imprisonment, mandatory detention, Padilla v. Kentucky, right to counsel, U.S. Supreme Court

BIA: Leveling the playing field for § 212(c) relief

By Tamikka Pate After much belaboring over who is entitled to relief from removal under long-repealed section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed by Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, H.R. 3610, 104th Cong. § 304(b) (1996)), the BIA has finally reached a decision. In Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014), the BIA adopted an approach that places inadmissible and deportable LPRs on a truly level playing field, while disregarding mechanical distinctions that arise from statutory structure and bear no relation to [...]

Posted by César on April 22, 2014 on 9:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: § 212(c), Board of Immigration Appeals, guest blogger, IIRIRA

3 Cir: Barred from 212(c) relief by conviction that didn’t exist when application filed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a noncitizen was not eligible for relief under former INA § 212(c) because a conviction that occurred 13 years after submitting his application pushed him beyond the permissible time of imprisonment. Lupera-Espinoza v. Attorney General, No. 12-2007, slip op. (3d Cir. May 28, 2013) (Hardiman, Aldisert, and Stark, JJ.). Judge Hardiman wrote the panel’s opinion. This case involved an LPR who was convicted of selling cocaine in 1993. A year later he was placed in deportation proceedings during which he sought § 212(c) relief. At that [...]

Posted by César on August 6, 2013 on 9:00 am Leave a Comment
Filed Under: § 212(c), 3d Circuit Court of Appeals, aggravated felony

Tx Ct Crim App: Right to counsel properly waived despite not being told about deportation possibility

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the state’s highest criminal court, held that a person who waived his right to an attorney in a misdemeanor drug possession prosecution did not do so impermissibly despite not having been told that he might be deportable upon conviction. State v. Guerrero, No. PD-1258-12, slip op. (Tex. Crim. App. June 5, 2013) (Cochran, Keller, Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Alcala, JJ.). Judge Cochran wrote the court’s opinion. This case presents like the picture of interior immigration enforcement in the age of crImmigration law. The defendant entered [...]

Posted by César on July 16, 2013 on 9:00 am 14 Comments
Filed Under: § 212(c), cancellation of removal, conviction, habeas, local immigration policing, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, state court, stop-time rule, Texas state court, waiver

The state of play for § 212(c) relief

By Stephen W. Manning Seventeen years ago, Congress repealed INA § 212(c). Seventeen years is a long time. Seventeen years is enough time to raise a child, to travel beyond the solar system’s heliosphere, and, depending on where in the United States one lives, to watch the hatching of a new swarm of periodical cicadas. One might have the notion that four presidential election cycles would be enough time to bring to final adjudication the legal issues surrounding § 212(c) and finally allow the many long-time immigrants who could benefit from § 212(c) to move on with their lives. This post [...]

Posted by César on March 19, 2013 on 9:00 am 12 Comments
Filed Under: § 212(c), Board of Immigration Appeals, guest blogger

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 § 212(c) relief remains available to individuals convicted through a jury trial prior to the enactment of IIRIRA in 1996 if they are able to show a “likelihood of reliance” on the now repealed law. 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). [...]

Posted by César on February 19, 2013 on 9:00 am 74 Comments
Filed Under: § 212(c), 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Scholars Sidebar: SCOTUS holds § 212(c) comparable grounds requirement is arbitrary and capricious

In December the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the comparable grounds rule that had long been used to determine whether an individual facing deportation could seek relief under former INA § 212(c). Judulang v. Holder, No. 10-694, slip op. (U.S. Dec. 12, 2011). I wrote an article for LexisNexis analyzing the Supreme Court’s decision and its relevance for immigration practitioners. U.S. Supreme Court Holds BIA’s Comparable-Grounds Requirement for § 212(c) Relief is Arbitrary and Capricious, 2011 Emerging Issues 6164 (2011). The terms of my agreement with Lexis don’t allow me to make it available [...]

Posted by César on January 10, 2012 on 9:00 am 17 Comments
Filed Under: § 212(c), commentaries, Scholars Sidebar

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Biden-Harris immigration priorities signal big shift, raise many questions
  • Biden’s Migration Policy Options
  • Migrating to Prison, one year later
  • With Biden returning to White House, private prison stock falls
  • New York Review of Books
  • Justice Dept pushes Supreme Court to Imperil Families

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.