crimmigration.com

Like I wrote last week, the Supreme Court's decision in Figueroa-Flores v. United States, No. 08-108, slip op. (May 4, 2009),  is great news for immigrants' advocates.  Rather than add to the many news reports that have been published about this case, let's focus on what this case means for immigration attorneys. As the opinion explains: The question is whether the statute requires the Government to show that the defendant knew that the “means of identification” he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, in fact, belonged to “another person.” We conclude that it does.   [...]

The BIA today released a split decision holding that a late appeal of a criminal conviction does not undermine the conviction's finality.  Matter of Cardenas Abreu, 24 I&N Dec. 795 (BIA 2009).  In Cardenas-Abreu, the BIA considered an appeal of a New York state criminal conviction for first degree burglary, NY Penal § 140.30.  The respondent failed to appeal his conviction within the 30 days allowed by New York's criminal procedure laws to file a direct appeal of a criminal conviction. Meanwhile, DHS initiated removal proceedings and the respondent was ordered removed due to [...]

The U.S. Supreme Court released its decision this morning in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, No. 08-108, holding that to convict a defendant of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) the government must prove that the defendant “knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.  The government had argued that it did not need to prove that the defendant knew this. A preliminary read of the decision makes me think it's a victory for defendants (including immigrants), but a more detailed discussion is to come.... To read the 9-0 decision, authored [...]

After announcing earlier this week that it would hear arguments in Kucana v. Holder, No. 08-911, the Supreme Court is now expected to clarify whether federal courts have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen.  As immigration attorneys know, motions to reopen are frequently filed for a number of reasons. Kucana's claim is not out of the ordinary.  Kucana, an asylum applicant from Albania, claims to have slept through his alarm and missed a scheduled hearing.  The IJ entered an order of removal in absentia.  Kucana, who allegedly arrived at the court a few minutes [...]

Yesterday, the nationwide radio program Democracy Now! ran a segment on hunger strikers at the Port Isabel Detention Center in the Río Grande Valley of South Texas. Given that our firm practices at PIDC, I can attest to the lack of legal assistance available to these detainees.  The detention center is in the middle of nowhere.  There are only a handful of lawyers who regularly accept clients from PIDC. Some of these attorneys are in private practice and others work at one of the few non-profits that help detained immigrants, but they all share a commitment to defending [...]

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Nijhawan v. Holder, No. 08-495, yesterday, a case that is expected to shed light on what constitutes a conviction under INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i), the fraud or deceit aggravated felonies.Thomas Moseley, representing Nijhawan, placed enormous emphasis on the grammatical construction of the statute.  According to Moseley, the “that” in § 101(a)(43)(M)(i)--“an offense that involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000”--means that the jury or, in a bench trial, the judge must find that the loss amount exceeded [...]

The New Jersey Supreme Court today hears arguments in a case that presents the question: “How much impact can a deportation detainer by Immigration and Customs Enforcement have on the setting of bail on a criminal charge?”This case, State v. Fajardo-Santos, No. A-82-08, arises from an undocumented criminal defendant whose bail was raised after ICE placed a detainer on him.  According to news reports, Manuel Fajardo-Santos, was charged with molestation of a child.  Initially, a state judge set bail at $75,000.  After ICE issued a hold on Fajardo-Santos in preparation for removal [...]

 Some border county sheriffs want Arizona schools to start asking students whether they are in this country legally. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who originated the idea, said Arizona taxpayers are underwriting millions of dollars of costs of teaching English to children who have no legal right to be here. He also said there is a link between illegal immigration and social problems and gang activity. Only thing is, a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision appears to make it illegal for school officials to ask. In a 5-4 decision, the justices overturned a Texas law that authorized school [...]