Inadmissible Alien Immigration Waiver Virginia Lawyers

Matter of Alejandro MORES-COBA, Respondent
Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals

Facts:

The respondent is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on October 23, 1985. He is the father of four United States citizen children. He was convicted in Arizona of unlawful possession of marijuana on the basis of a guilty plea entered on July 21, 1991. The respondent was sentenced to more than 4 years of imprisonment. The Immigration Judge concluded that the respondent’s conviction rendered him removable and statutorily ineligible for a waiver under section 212(c) of the Act because although he pled guilty to his offense in 1991, the conviction did not become final until he was sentenced in 2005, after the repeal of section 212(c). The Immigration Judge also denied the respondent’s application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. Respondent appealed the decision.

Inadmissible Alien Immigration Waiver Virginia Lawyers

Issue:

• The issue here is whether the date of sentencing or the date of plea agreement is controlling in determining whether the alien is eligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994).

Discussion:

The respondent argues on appeal that the Immigration Judge erred in finding him ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the Act. He asserts that his case is covered by INS v. St. Cyr, 150 L. Ed. 2d 347 (2001), in which the United States Supreme Court determined that although section 212(c) was repealed in 1996, the waiver remains available to aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who would have been eligible for relief at the time of their plea. Thus he contends that he is eligible for a waiver because he entered a guilty plea on July 21, 1991, even though he was not sentenced until October 26, 2005. The Court agreed with the views of the respondent that it is the date of an alien’s plea agreement, rather than the date of sentencing, that controls in determining whether the alien is eligible for a section 212(c) waiver. The Supreme Court observed in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 321-25 that the determinant in respect of the waiver was the alien’s reliance on the availability of section 212(c) relief when he agreed to plead guilty. Therefore, because the respondent entered a guilty plea in 1991, he is not precluded from establishing eligibility for a waiver on the basis of his 2005 sentencing date.

Judgment:

The appeal was sustained and the record was remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

The SRIS Law Group Virginia lawyers will do their best to help you with your immigration case. Contact a Virginia lawyer from our firm to discuss your immigration case. A Virginia lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your immigration case and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

We have client meeting locations in Fairfax County, Prince William, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Fredericksburg & Lynchburg.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.