Skip to content

Author: Scott Mossman

Published on

Today USCIS provided more information about eligibility for deferred action for undocumented persons who arrived in the U.S. as children. The news includes the following important developments for persons with criminal records:

  • Expunged convictions and juvenile delinquency adjudications will not count toward automatic disqualification.
  • Minor traffic offenses, including driving without a license, will not count toward automatic disqualification for having 3 or more non-significant misdemeanors (even if, as in California, driving without a license is a misdemeanor).
  • Several types of crimes were eliminated from the significant misdemeanor category, so that they do not form an automatic ground of disqualification. Notably, it eliminated crimes involving violence, threats, or assault; theft, larceny, or fraud; obstruction of justice or bribery; unlawful flight from arrest, prosecution, or the scene of an accident; or unlawful possession of drugs. However, USCIS will continue to consider these offenses in deciding whether to grant deferred action in the exercise of discretion.
  • Any offense that resulted to a sentence to time in custody of more than 90 days now counts as a significant misdemeanor. Time in custody does not include suspended portions of sentences or time while the person is held on an immigration detainer.
  • Immigration-related state crimes (non-federal crimes) will not count toward automatic disqualification as either a felony or misdemeanor. In other words, the types of criminal immigration offenses created by the State of Arizona (and found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) are not a basis for disqualification.

Learn more at www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals.

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code section 69, attempting to deter or resisting an executive officer, is not categorically a crime of violence for aggravated felony purposes. On its face, CPC 69 would seem to be a crime of violence since it may be violated in two ways: (1) by attempting through threats or violence to deter or prevent an officer from performing a duty imposed by law; or (2) by resisting by force or violence an officer in the performance of his or her duty. California jury instructions, however, provide that "violence" in this respect is synonymous with "force" and both "mean any [unlawful] application of physical force against the person of another, even though it causes no pain or bodily harm or leaves no mark and even though only the feelings of such person are injured by the act."

The Supreme Court has held that under the first test for determining if an offense is a "crime of violence", 18 USC 16(a) ("an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another") an offense must be an active, violent crime. The Ninth Circuit has previously held that a California battery that requires only an offensive, noninjurious touching does not necessary meet that standard. CPC 69 requires only the same type of battery, so it is not necessarily a crime of violence either.

Although the offense is not a crime of violence under the first test for a crime of violence, the alternative test encompasses "any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." 18 USC 16(b). The Supreme Court has held that this test, like section 16(a), requires a level of intent of at least recklessness. Resisting an officer under the second prong of CPC 69 is a general intent crime that requires only the intent to resist with at least de minimus force. It does not require intentional use of violent force or reckless disregard of a substantial risk that violent force may be used (by the offender). In other words, a person may be convicted of CPC 69 for nonviolently resisting under circumstances where there is no substantial risk of that resulting in violent force. The court contrasted an Arizona statute that had been interpreted by the Arizona courts to exclude de minimus resistance and which required a substantial risk of injury to the peace officer. CPC 69 thus is not categorically a crime of violence.

The court remanded the case to allow the government to file additional conviction documents to establish that this particular conviction was for a crime of violence. When the case was before the agency, the Ninth Circuit's previous "missing element" rule was in effect and the government may not have had cause to submit documents for the so-called modified categorical analysis. Aguila Montes de Oca overruled the missing element rule after the agency decided the case, so the court found the government should have the opportunity to further contest the case under Aguila. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that Aguila's new rule should be applied only prospectively.

Finally, I would note that the fantastic decision in this case was surely the result of great lawyering by super lawyer Holly Cooper of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Board held that a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad may be treated as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(iii), and thus subject to the grounds of inadmissibility, if DHS proves by clear and convincing evidence that he engaged in illegal activity at the port of entry before admission. In this case, the resident allegedly attempted to bring an undocumented juvenile alien into the U.S. in violation of the law.

The Board first held that "illegal activity" clearly includes criminal activity such as alien smuggling. It suggested the language did have some limits and might not include other illegal, noncriminal activity such as torts, breaches of contract, or noncriminal regulatory violations. The resident had not argued, though, that smuggling would not be "illegal activity."

Instead, the resident argued the statute permits treatment of a returning resident as an applicant for admission only if the illegal activity occurred in a foreign country or on the high seas, since a port of entry is on U.S. soil and the statute says “has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States.” The immigration judge had agreed, but the Board did not. It held a noncitizen is not in the U.S. for immigration purposes until after inspection and admission.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 22KB)

Published on

On remand from the Supreme Court, Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 132 S. Ct. 2011 (2012), the Ninth Circuit was obliged to vacate its previous determination that an applicant for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) could impute his mother's residence to establish the statutory requirement of 7 years of continuous residence.

The Ninth Circuit then reached the noncitizen's alternative argument that his conviction for maintaining a dwelling for keeping controlled substances in violation of 16 Delaware Code section 4755(a)(5) (2002) did not terminate his own period of continuous residence. He had argued it might qualify as a single offense of possession for his own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, which would not make him deportable and thus not terminate his continuous residence. The court rejected that argument summarily, pointing to the indictment which alleged he maintained the dwelling for cocaine-related crimes and a marijuana distribution crime.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

Ninth Circuit here added a gloss to its previous decision in Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2007), which had upheld 8 C.F.R. § 1212.7(d). Section 1212.7(d) requires “extraordinary circumstances” such as “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for a 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility for an applicant for admission convicted of a violent or dangerous crime. Mejia had found that this was a permissible limitation on the exercise of discretion even though the standard exceeded 212(h)'s threshold requirement of "extreme hardship."

The gloss added by Rivera-Peraza, and the only thing that made this case worthy of publication, was the recognition that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship required by § 1212.7(d) does not have to be to a qualifying relative. Hardship to the applicant counts for the purpose of the exercise of discretion. The Board recognized that, but found that the hardship was insufficient to outweigh the applicant's armed robbery conviction. The Ninth thus found no error of law and dismissed the petition.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Board held that, with a sentence to a year or more, a conviction for California Penal Code § 32 is categorically an aggravated felony for obstruction of justice under INA § 101(a)(43)(S). In doing so, it clarified its previous decision in Matter of Espinoza, 22 I&N Dec. 889 (BIA 1999). The Ninth Circuit had interpreted Espinoza to mean that a conviction involves obstruction of justice only if it involved hindering an ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding. Trung Thanh Hoang v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011). And a conviction under PC § 32 does not require the existence of an ongoing investigation or proceeding, so the Ninth Circuit's interpretation indicated it was not necessarily an aggravated felony.

The Board asserted that "obstruction of justice" in the aggravated felony definition is an ambiguous term and invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Brand-X to interpret that term despite the Ninth Circuit's decision. It held that an offense relates to obstruction of justice "if it includes the critical element of an affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice." Further, it implicitly held interference with the process of justice could include assisting with escape from arrest.

The Board distinguished Espinoza, where it held misprision in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 was not an obstruction of justice offense, because misprision does not require the person to act with the specific intent to interfere with the process of justice.

All of this points to the more basic problem that the Board has stretched "obstruction of justice" far past its traditional, accepted meaning. The Board asserts the phrase is ambiguous, but is it? Open any law dictionary and it is likely to define the term as interfering with the administration of justice, not as driving a get-away car. And it is not limited to any particular category of crimes, so an accessory after the fact conviction under the Board's definition could be an aggravated felony even where the underlying crime is not.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 31KB)

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that the Board of Immigration Appeals improperly engaged in fact-finding when it reversed the immigration judge's determination that the petitioner was not inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) for knowing participation in drug trafficking. The petitioner had attempted to enter the U.S. in his employer's truck on instructions to get parts for the business and to have the tires changed on the truck. Inspectors at the port of entry found marijuana in the gas tank and charged him with inadmissibility (no criminal charges were filed). The immigration judge found the petitioner testified credibly that he had not known about the drugs. The Board reversed that decision based on testimony by one of the Customs and Border Protection officers who conducted the inspection. The testimony consisted of estimates and proffered opinion, but the immigration judge had declined to make findings of fact based on that testimony. By making findings of fact in the first place, the Board acted contrary to the limits on its authority under the regulations. The court held the Board should have remanded to the immigration judge for additional findings of fact.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) only exempts returning permanent residents with an inadmissible conviction from being considered to be seeking admission after travel abroad. It does not prevent the conviction from making the noncitizen inadmissible to re-adjust status to permanent residence if the noncitizen is later put in removal proceedings on another basis and needs to qualify for relief from removal.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 21KB)

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that conducting an individual hearing on the merits of a cancellation of removal application by videoconferencing does not necessarily violate the constitutional right to due process or the statutory right to a fair hearing. It might, though, depending on the circumstances of a particular case. The court focused on the constitutional due process right without addressing the statutory right under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B).

The court held that whether a particular hearing by videoconferencing violates due process depends on the degree of interference caused by the technology and the degree of prejudice that resulted. It found the noncitizen in this case failed to establish that the use of videoconferencing may have affected the outcome.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

For a review of the potential arguments against the use of videoconferencing, read the American Immigration Council's advisory at http://www.legalactioncenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/lac/lac_pa_121203.pdf. The memo was last updated in 2003, but it still has useful suggestions.

Published on

With seven judges dissenting, the Ninth Circuit voted not to re-hear en banc the panel decision in Planes v. Holder (discussed in my previous blog post). Thus, the rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a noncitizen may be removed from the U.S. if found guilty of a crime even if the conviction is not final because there is a pending direct appeal as of right. And if the noncitizen wins his or her appeal of the criminal conviction after removal? The only apparent option is for the noncitizen, now outside of the U.S., to attempt to request discretionary reopening of the removal order, which the Board of Immigration Appeals may deny (and has denied in some cases).

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

510-835-1115