Practice Advisory for Criminal Defenders: Certain Criminal Offenses May Bar Persons from Applying for the New Deferred Action Status Program Announced by President Obama
This advisory for criminal defense counsel outlines defense strategies to preserve a client’s possible eligibility for deferred action.
Arguing That a California Infraction is Not a Conviction; Test for Non-Misdemeanor Offenses
Practice Advisory: The BIA held that a violation of a Kansas municipal ordinance is a conviction for immigration purposes despite the lack of appointed defense counsel or right to a jury trial in those proceedings. Matter of Cuellar, 25 I&N Dec. 850 (BIA 2012).
LPR Bars to § 212(h) – To Whom Do They Apply?
Matter of Rodriguez, 25 I&N Dec. 784 (BIA 2012). Section 212(h) of the INA1 is an important waiver of crimes-based grounds ofinadmissibility.
Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences in Light of Padilla
Prosecutors' Consideration of Immigration Consequences of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.
Advisory: Ninth Circuit Panel Reverses Itself in Pagayon II
Testimony before an IJ may not be used to characterize an offense, or to link two documents from the record of conviction. A Ninth Circuit panel has withdrawn a very bad opinion on the modified categorical approach and substituted a substantially better one.
Immigration Consequences of a Plea to Calif. H&S § 11357(b) Now an Infraction
Practice Advisory: California Health and Safety Code § 11357(b) prohibits possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana. After January 1, 2011 it will be treated as an infraction.
Conviction on Direct Appeal of Right Remains a “Conviction” for Immigration Purposes
Planes v. Holder (9th Cir. July 5, 2011): Criminal defenders must assume that filing a timely direct appeal of right will not prevent a conviction from having immigration effect. This is a change in the law, created by Planes v. Holder, supra. Advocates will file a petition for rehearing and there is a good chance that this will be granted, and a reasonable chance, although no guarantee, that Planes may be reversed.
Practice Advisory: Lujan & Nunez, July 14, 2011
Warning: Immigrant Defendants with a First Minor Drug Offense: “Rehabilitative relief” will no longer eliminate a first conviction for simple possession for immigration purposes, unless the conviction occurred before 7/14/11
Update on INA § 212(h) Defense Strategies
"Many Permanent Residents Are Not Subject to the § 212(h) Permanent Resident Bar; The Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms § 212(h) as a Direct Waiver of Deportability; Using § 212(h) When LPR Cancellation is Not an Option" by Kathy Brady
Practice Advisory: Adjustment of Status Following an Admission Does Not “Re-Start” the Five-Year Clock for Purposes of the Moral Turpitude Deportation Ground
Matter of Alyazji, 25 I&N Dec. 397 (BIA 2011), overruling in part Matter of Shanu, 23 I&N Dec. 754 (BIA 2005).
Practice Advisory by Katherine Brady on the Supreme Court Case Nijhawan v. Holder
Practice advisory by Katherine Brady on the Supreme Court case Nijhawan v. Holder, which deals with the categorical approach and aggravated felonies.