Rodriguez-Valencia v. Holder (BIA 7/21/2011) In a published decision, the BIA held that conviction for unauthorized imitation of trademarks constitutes an “aggravated felony” as an offense relating to counterfeiting for purposes of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(43)(R). The petitioner was convicted of violating California Penal Code Sec. 350 for having willfully manufactured, intentionally selling, […]
Posts Tagged ‘removal’
Aggravated Felony Watch
October 13th, 2011 
Max Nuyen 
Posted in Deportation and Detention 
Tags: aggravated felony, BIA, counterfeiting, removal, Rodriguez-Valencia v. Holder 
Comments Off on Aggravated Felony WatchBIA Has Authority to Expand List of “Particular Serious Crimes” Which Would Limit Asylum Claims
August 29th, 2011 Max Nuyen Delgado v. Holder (9th Cir. 8/19/2011) Most folks with a passing understanding of immigration law know that certain crimes will lead to the denial of immigration benefits or removal. For instance, you would be ineligible for asylum if you were convicted of an aggravated felony, regardless of how meritorious your claim of persecution may be. […]
BIA Modifies Meaning of “Date of Admission” for Removal Purposes
February 14th, 2011 Max Nuyen Matter of Alyazji (BIA 2/3/2011) The BIA rarely reverses itself (but is reversed on many occasions by the circuit appellate courts), but it does happen from time to time. In this case, the BIA conceded that an issue that it considered in an earlier case was decided wrong. The issue is: What is the meaning […]
Posted in Uncategorized Tags: crime of moral turpitude, date of admission, Matter of Alyazji, removal 1 Comment »Second Minor Drug Possession Conviction Is Not Aggravated Felony for Immigration Purposes
June 17th, 2010 Max Nuyen Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2010) In this case, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of cancellation of removal, an applicant must actually be convicted of an aggravated felony to be disqualified from seeking such relief. The case arose because the respondent, a lawful permanent resident, had been convicted in Texas of possessing […]
BIA finds INA Requires No Overt Act to Advance Conspiracy In Order to Be Removable
May 18th, 2010 Max Nuyen Matter of Orlando Gracia Richardson (BIA 2010) In this case, the BIA decided that for purposes of removal pursuant to § 101(a)(43)(U) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U), the term “conspiracy” is not limited to conspiracies that require the co-conspirator to have committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The respondent, Richardson, […]
Posted in Deportation and Detention Tags: aggravated felony, BIA, conspiracy, Matter of Richardson, removal 3 Comments »Criminal Defendants Must Be Advised of Immigration Consequences of Plea Bargain.
April 15th, 2010 Max Nuyen Padilla v. Kentucky (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2010) The U.S. Supreme Court took on the question as to whether a non-citizen defendant in a criminal case must be be advised by his lawyer beforehand that pleading guilty to certain criminal offenses would result in his being removed from the United States. The case arose because Jose […]
Posted in Deportation and Detention Tags: drug trafficking, immigration consequences of criminal conviction, ineffective assistance of counsel, Padilla v. Kentucky, removal Comments Off on Criminal Defendants Must Be Advised of Immigration Consequences of Plea Bargain.Special Rules Cancellation of Removal for Battered Spouses Available to Permanent Residents
March 16th, 2010 Max Nuyen Matter of A–M– (BIA 2009) In this case, the Board of Immigration Appeals considered the question of whether or not a lawful permanent resident is eligible to apply for special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses. There are certain aspects of U.S. immigration law which are purely driven by humanitarian considerations. One of these […]
Posted in Deportation and Detention, Family Based Tags: abused spouse, battered spouse, BIA, cancellation of removal, Matter of A-- M--, removal, special rule Comments Off on Special Rules Cancellation of Removal for Battered Spouses Available to Permanent ResidentsDeferred Judgment with Suspended Fine Not Considered Conviction for Purposes of Removal
February 4th, 2010 Max Nuyen Retuta v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010) In this case, the 9th Circuit addressed the question of whether the definition of a “conviction” in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) includes a judgment that withholds an adjudication of guilt and that only imposes a suspended fine. The case arose because DHS placed Retuta, an immigrant from […]
Posted in Deportation and Detention Tags: controlled substance, conviction, criminal convictions, deferred judgment, drug possession, minute order, removal, Retuta v. Holder, suspended sentence Comments Off on Deferred Judgment with Suspended Fine Not Considered Conviction for Purposes of RemovalNinth Circuit Reaffirms Imputation of Parent’s LPR Status for Minor Child
September 30th, 2009 Max Nuyen Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder (9th Cir.) In this case, the 9th Circuit decided the question of whether a parent’s status as a lawful permanent resident may be imputed to an unemancipated minor child residing with that parent, for purposes of satisfying the five-year permanent residence requirement for cancellation of removal under § 240A(a)(1) of the Immigration […]
Attempted Kidnapping Deemed to be Aggravated Felony for Purposes of Removability
September 28th, 2009 Max Nuyen Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder (9th Cir.) In the 9th Circuit, attempted kidnapping in violation of California Penal Code § 207(a) is now officially a removable offense because the crime carries with it the threat of physical force being used against the victim. Attempted kidnapping meets the definition of aggravated felony under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) because […]