With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments in a § 212(c) case on October 12, Judulang v. Holder, No. 10-694 (U.S.), I finally made time to read an article on § 212(c) that’s been on my to-read stack for some time. In Eligibility for Section 212(c) Relief from Deportation: Is it the Ground or the Offense, the Dancer or the Dance?, Sara Fawk, a 2010 graduate of Western New England College School of Law, does an impressive job of relaying the long history of this now-repealed form of relief and explaining the current circuit split that now finds itself in the Supreme Court’s hands. [...]
SCOTUS will decide § 212(c) case
Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about the continued availability of § 212(c) relief. The question presented in Judulang v. Holder, No. 10-694, is Whether a lawful permanent resident who was convicted by guilty plea of an offense that renders him deportable and excludable under differently phrased statutory subsections, but who did not depart and reenter the United States between his conviction and the commencement of removal proceedings, is categorically foreclosed from seeking discretionary relief from removal under former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality [...]
9th Cir: 212(c) relief remains available for guilty pleas even if ineligible when plea entered
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that relief pursuant to former INA § 212(c) remains available to individuals who pled guilty prior to its 1996 repeal. Gallegos-Vasquez v. Holder, No. 05-72412, slip op. (March 1, 2011) (Cudahy, Wardlaw, and Fletcher). Judge Fletcher wrote the panel’s opinion. This case involves an individual who was convicted of two misdemeanors, receiving known stolen property and hit and run with property damage, in July 1989. Gallegos-Vasquez v. Holder, No. 05-72412, slip op. at 2991. He automatically adjusted to LPR status in December 1990 [...]
7th Circuit: BIA must use Silva-Treviño analysis; can’t rely on categorical approach alone
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that it was improper for the BIA to rely on a precedential decision in which it used a categorical analysis to determine whether a crime involving moral turpitude. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, No. 10-1664, slip op. (7th Cir. Nov. 24, 2010) (Manion, Tinder, and Hamilton). Instead, the Seventh Circuit panel held, the BIA must use the three-step analysis mandated by Matter of Silva-Treviño, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), to determine whether a criminal offense involves moral turpitude. Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, No. 10-1664, slip op. at 8-9. Judge [...]
SCOTUS: Takes no action on two § 212(c) petitions; circuit split will continue for now
The Supreme Court took no action today on two petitions for certiorari regarding the scope of INA § 212(c). After today’s “long conference”—the session at which the Court considers the petitions received over the summer—the Court announced the fourteen petitions that it granted. Neither of the § 212(c) cases was included in the Court’s list. Though it is possible that the Court will grant these petitions at a later date that is unlikely. Both § 212(c) petitions, Jerez-Sanchez v. Holder, No. 09-1211 (2d Cir.), and Canto v. Holder, No. 09-133 (7th Cir.), concerned the scope of § 212(c) relief [...]
6th Circuit: No relief available under former § 212(c) for people convicted after trial
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that former INA § 212(c) was repealed and never reinstated for people who were convicted after a trial. Kellermann v. Holder, No. 08-3927, slip op. (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010) (Norris, Cole, and Adams). Judge Adams wrote for the three-judge panel. This case concerned a lawful permanent resident who was convicted in 1992 “of making false statements to an agency of the United States and conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1001.” Kellermann, No. 08-3927, slip op. at 2.The IJ determined that Kellermann was [...]