Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) cases, involving a claim of abuse, abandonment or neglect against one parent while the child resides with the non-offending parent, are commonly referred to as one-parent cases. These cases, though permissible under the plain language of the statute as well as federal agency interpretation, have proved challenging particularly at the state court phase of the application process and at times before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the agency that adjudicates SIJS petitions. This advisory is intended to be a primer for practitioners to help them successfully advocate for SIJS where one-parent SIJS claims are involved.
In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the full categorical approach applies in immigration proceedings. A result is that where the criminal statute defines the offense more broadly than the immigration definition at issue, the conviction will not trigger the immigration penalty.
In Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. _____, ____S.Ct.____, 2013 WL 610201, (February 20, 2013) the U.S. Supreme Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) was a “new rule” that did not apply retroactively to convictions final before March 31, 2010. In Padilla, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise a noncitizen about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.
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).
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 of Crimes in Light of Padilla v. Kentucky.