By Guest Blogger Toni Maschler This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a decision “pretermitting” (denying due to ineligibility) the application for relief from inadmissibility under INA § 212(h) due to an aggravated felony conviction. Mendoza Leiba v. Holder, slip op. No. 11-1845 (4th Cir. Nov. 9, 2012). Mr. Mendoza’s petition for review was granted, reversing the earlier decisions of the Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals. Mr. Mendoza, a Salvadoran married to a U.S. citizen and the father of five U.S. citizen children, had been placed in removal [...]
BIA: LPR seeks admission if caught engaging in illegal activity at port of entry
Guest Blogger Tamikka Pate Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a lawful permanent resident of the United States may be treated as an applicant for admission, pursuant to INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(iii), in removal proceedings if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the returning resident engaged in “illegal activity” at a United States port of entry. Matter of Martinez, 25 I&N Dec. 845, 848 (BIA 2012). Respondent Ignacio Guzman Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States [...]
SCOTUS: LPR admission requirement doesn’t apply retroactively
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the admission requirement imposed on LPRs in 1996 does not apply retroactively. Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. –, slip op. (2012). Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority decision for herself and Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Thomas and Alito. This case involved an LPR who was convicted through a guilty plea in 1994 of conspiracy to make or possess counterfeit securities, 18 U.S.C. § 371. At the time, this conviction posed no exclusion or deportation [...]
10 Cir: Lawful entry can be illegal reentry
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that an entry that would constitute a lawful entry for purposes of admission was an illegal reentry for purposes of reinstatement of removal. Cordova-Soto v. Holder, No. 10-9569, slip op. (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2011) (Hartz, Holloway, and Porfilio, JJ.). Judge Holloway wrote the panel’s decision. This case involves an LPR who, pro se, requested and received a stipulated order of removal in which she conceded removability for having been convicted of an aggravated felony among other charges. Cordova-Soto, No. 10-9569, slip op. at 2-3. She was [...]
BIA: Cuban adjustment of status constitutes admission for § 237 removal purposes
The BIA held that an individual whose status was adjusted from parolee to lawful permanent resident pursuant to the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966 was dmitted for purposes of removal under INA § 237(a). Matter of Espinosa Guillot, 25 I&N Dec. 653 (BIA 2011) (Grant, Malphrus, and Mullane, Board members). Board member Grant wrote the panel’s decision. This case involves a Cuban citizen who was paroled into the United States and adjusted his status under the CRAA (often referred to as the Cuban Adjustment Act or CAA). Guillot subsequently was convicted of trafficking in cannabis and [...]
3 Cir: MN sex offender registration not CIMT; adjustment doesn’t reset admission date
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that Minnesota’s predatory offender registration crime does not involve moral turpitude. Totimeh v. Attorney General, Nos. 10-3939 & 11-1998, slip op. (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2012) (McKee, Rendell, and Ambro, JJ.). The court also followed the BIA’s 2011 decision in which the Board held that the applicable date of admission for removability is the date on which the noncitizen was in the country when the crime was committed as opposed to a later adjustment of status date. Judge Ambro wrote the panel’s decision. This case involves an [...]