Skip to content

immigrantpleas

Published on

In this opinion, the Ninth Circuit provided more details about the bond hearing required under Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008).  Casas-Castrillon provided for a bond hearing before an immigration judge for detained aliens while they petition for review of an administratively final order of removal.

Singh held DHS has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.  Casas-Castrillon had held DHS had the burden of justifying continued detention, but did not state the showing required.  Clear and convincing is a heightened standard appropriate to the interests at stake when a person is detained in civil proceedings for several years.

Singh also held that the agency must provide contemporaneous record of the bond proceedings, such as a audio recording.  Immigration judges typically do not record bond proceedings and instead just prepare a memorandum if the alien chooses to appeal.  The current practice severely impedes judicial review of errors or due process violations.  The court's decision recognizes this, while not imposing the additional burden of requiring a transcription of the proceedings.

Singh also noted that the mere existence of a criminal record is not enough to deny bond.  Instead, the alien must constitute a present danger to the community.  So, the adjudicator must consider the extensiveness of criminal activity, the recency of such activity, and the seriousness of the offenses.

Read the opinion at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/31/1015715.pdf

Published on

In Diouf II, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(6) raises serious constitutional concerns, which require additional procedural safeguards beyond those provided under the regulations. Section 1231(a)(6) authorizes detention of an alien subject to a removal order if the government is not able to physically remove the alien within the initial 90 days after the order becomes final.

Under the regulations, ICE officers periodically determine whether aliens subject to final removal orders should remain in detention or be released on bond or other conditions. Detention under this regime may continue for years.  ICE follows these procedures because the Supreme Court held in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) that the government could not indefinitely detain aliens subject to final removal orders, at least where removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Diouf II, however, holds that the procedures adopted by ICE are not sufficient where the detention significantly exceeds six months.  It holds that an alien subject to final removal order must receive a bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where removal is not imminent and the alien has been detained for six months. Further, it holds that the alien should receive bond unless ICE establishes to the satisfaction of the immigration judge that the alien is a flight risk or poses a danger to the community.

These are the same safeguards that the Ninth Circuit found necessary for aliens subject to prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(a) (detention during direct challenge to a removal order).  See Casas-Castrillon v. Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008).

Read the opinion at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/03/07/09-56774.pdf.

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the crime of moral turpitude ground of deportability, INA 237(a)(2)(A), encompasses a conviction for attempt if the attempt is to commit a crime that involves moral turpitude.  In this case, the respondent had a conviction for attempted grand theft.  The Board found that this conviction, along with another conviction for grand theft, made him deportable for having two convictions for crimes of moral turpitude after admission.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument that conviction for attempt to commit a crime of moral turpitude should not trigger deportability because INA 237(a)(2)(A) does not explicitly include attempt, while the ground of inadmissibility at INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) does include the inchoate offenses of attempt and conspiracy.

The Board noted a Ninth Circuit decision, Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2007), which concluded that this meant the deportation ground was broader (rather than narrower) than the inadmissibility ground.  The Ninth Circuit reasoned the listing of only two inchoate offenses in the inadmissibility ground narrowed the ground to exclude other inchoate offenses such as solicitation or facilitation, while the lack of any references to inchoate offenses in the deportability ground meant it was expansive enough to cover all inchoate crimes.

The Board cited, but did not quite adopt the Ninth Circuit's analysis (given it may have wished to leave room to find that the inadmissibility ground covers inchoate offenses other than attempt and conspiracy).  It offered its own justification for the listing of attempt and conspiracy in the inadmissibility ground but not the deportability ground: Congress may have been just trying to be clear that the former covered attempt and conspiracy without implying anything about the coverage of the latter, particularly since the Congress drafted them at different times.  This belt-and-suspenders-argument overlooks the fact that Congress presumably knows how it drafted other parts of the Act and strives for consistency in its language.

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3706.pdf.

Published on

The Board in Guevara-Alfaro returned to the same issues decided by former Attorney General Mukasey in Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (AG 2008).

It first held that any intentional sexual contact between an adult and a child of less than 16 years of age involves moral turpitude if the adult knew or should have known the child was under 16. Thus, it held that a conviction under California Penal Code 261.5(d) (sexual intercourse between 21+ adult and minor under 16) may involve moral turpitude.

It acknowledged, however, that 261.5(d) did not categorically involve moral turpitude because the offense does not require that the perpetrator knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was less than 16 years of age.

In reaching this conclusion, the Board cited Brand-X to assert that the Ninth Circuit had to defer to this interpretation despite its decision in Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007).  It noted the Ninth Circuit ruled in Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) that the definition of a  crime of moral turpitude is quintessentially ambiguous, so the the court must defer to the Board's interpretation.

Quintero-Salazar had held that 261.5(d) would not involve moral turpitude if, for example, the relationship was between a high school junior of 15 years and 11 months and a college student of 21 years.  It noted that the conduct involved, consensual sex, would be legal if the two were married.  Marriages between 21 year-olds and 15 year-olds may not be as common as they once were in the U.S., but are legally possible in some states with parental consent.

Guevara Alfaro disagreed, holding that intentional sexual contact between a 15 year-old and a 21 year-old would involve moral turpitude, if the 21 year-old knew or reasonably should have known the victims age.  It did not explain how this could be a crime of moral turpitude if the two were legally married.

The Board next held it should use the process enunciated by Silva-Trevino to determine whether the offense actually involved moral turpitude (i.e., whether the perpetrator knew or reasonably should have known the victims age).  It held that since 261.5(d) did not categorically involve moral turpitude, it had to examine the record of conviction documents and, if the record of conviction is inconclusive, it had to review other probative evidence to determine if the offense involved moral turpitude.  This would include, in this case, the testimony of the respondent.

The important caveat that both Silva-Trevino and Guevara Alfaro included, but which immigration judges may overlook, is that they may proceed to the third step of examining other probative evidence only if the record of conviction documents are "inconclusive."  This should mean that an IJ may not look at other evidence if the record of conviction documents clearly show that the offense did not involve moral turpitude.  Thus, where state law permits such a conviction, a guilty plea that stipulates the defendant "did not know and had no reasonable basis for knowing the victim was under 16" should prevent inquiry by the IJ beyond the record of conviction.  The record of conviction in such a case would be conclusive.  Whether the Board actually adheres to this aspect of Silva-Trevino, however, remains to be seen.

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3705.pdf.

Published on

The Board held that, if the seven year period of continuous residence stops for 240A(a) cancellation of removal, it does not restart again based merely on a departure from and reentry to the U.S.  A key fact in this case, however, is that the conviction that stopped Nelson's period of continuous residence also made him inadmissible at the time of his reentry to the U.S.  There also was no claim that he obtained a waiver of that inadmissibility.  The Board reserved deciding whether the result would have been the same if he had been readmitted with a waiver.  The Board also attached some significance to the fact that the conviction was charged as a basis for removability (in addition to other grounds of removability), although it did not explain the exact relevance of this fact.

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3704.pdf

Published on
For removability under 237(a)(2)(A)(i), a crime of moral turpitude must occur within 5 years after "the date of admission."  In Alyazji, the Board (re)defined "the date of admission," abrogating Matter of Shanu in part.
The date of admission for this purpose is now the date of the admission by virtue which the person was present in the United States at the time of committing the crime of moral turpitude.  A few different scenarios illustrate the application:
  • A person who entered the U.S. without inspection would never be subject to this ground of deportability because he has not been admitted.
  • For a person who last entered the U.S. without inspection and then adjusts to permanent resident status (perhaps under 245(i)), the date of admission is the date of adjustment.  This is the case even if the person had a prior inspection and admission (perhaps on a tourist visa as a child), but then departed.
  • For a person who last entered the U.S. on a visa and then overstays or violates the terms of the admission before adjusting status to lawful permanent residence, the date of arrival on the visa is still the date of admission.
  • After obtaining lawful permanent resident status, a noncitizen does not obtain a new date of admission unless one of the exceptions at INA 101(a)(13)(C) applies (seeking return to the U.S. after abandonment of residence, absence of more than 180 days, removal, illegal activity abroad, commission of a crime identified in INA 212(a)(2) absent a waiver, etc.).

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3703.pdf

510-835-1115