Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Permanent Resident Certiorari
Bolder v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien, a lawful permanent resident, was placed in removal proceedings after traveling abroad. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the alien’s request for relief and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the alien’s motion to reopen. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision. Certiorari was granted.
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the IIRIRA’s new admission provision, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), apply to the alien’s conviction?
Discussion:
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which was enacted in 1996, effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction like the alien’s. Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, the Supreme Court determined that the IIRIRA’s new admission provision, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), did not apply to the alien’s conviction because § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) attached a new disability (denial of reentry) in respect to past events (his pre-IIRIRA offense, plea, and conviction). The alien’s pre-IIRIRA conviction, not present travel, was the wrongful activity Congress targeted in § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The alien engaged in no criminal activity after IIRIRA’s passage. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
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.
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.
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer Padilla Retroactive Application
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer Padilla Retroactive Application
United States v. Zach
Facts:
Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 motion seeking to vacate his guilty plea for drug trafficking. He contended that his motion was timely under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255(f)(3), as the Padilla rule recognized a new right that was retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, denied the motion. Defendant appealed.
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the district court had improperly denied the defendant’s motion for retroactive application of Padilla rule?
Discussion:
The court determined that insofar as the Padilla rule recognized a new right, the right could not be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review under the principles of Teague. Padilla was not a watershed rule implicating fundamental fairness, such that it served to enhance the accuracy of the fact-finding process. Padilla violations take place only when a defendant has acknowledged guilt and submitted himself to be sentenced accordingly. When such a defendant was surprised at a later date by the initiation of deportation proceedings that were not forecast by defense counsel, the injustice, while real, did not cast doubt on the verity of the defendant’s admission of guilt or the propriety of the sentence imposed pursuant to the plea agreement. 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255(f)(3) did not authorize courts to read between the lines of a prior opinion to discern whether that opinion, by implication, made a new rule retroactively applicable on collateral review. The only way to make a new rule retroactive was through a holding, not through dictum, and Padilla made no such holding. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
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.
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.
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer Administrative Appeal
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer Administrative Appeal
Mark Petro v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner came to the U.S. on a seaman’s visa, and overstay his visa by ten years. Respondent, Immigration and Naturalization Service, eventually ordered petitioner to be deported, and petitioner filed a waiver of deportation on the grounds of hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his waiver, and petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied his waiver on the grounds of jurisdiction, holding that under § 244(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), it could only review District Court opinions, and not administrative appeals. Petitioner deportable alien challenged the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s appeal under § 244(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since the court determined that petitioner did not have a “final order of deportation.”
Deportation Arlington Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear final orders of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals?
Discussion:
The court held that under the INA, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over “final orders of deportation.” The court determined that this included administrative appeals from the BIA, and remanded for a determination on petitioner’s waiver. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and held that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear final orders of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanded for a determination on petitioner’s waiver of deportation
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.
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.
Removal Arlington Virginia Lawyer Firearm Warrant Possession
Removal Arlington Virginia Lawyer Firearm Warrant Possession
Park Shelter v. United States
Facts:
When police arrived to execute a search warrant for drugs and firearms at defendant’s home, they announced their presence but waited only a short time before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering the home. Police discovered large quantities of drugs and a loaded gun. The State conceded that the entry was a violation of the “knock and announce” rule. Defendant was charged under state law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. The state trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that violation of the “knock and announce” rule did not require suppression under the Fourth Amendment. Defendant was convicted of drug possession. Certiorari was granted.
Removal Arlington Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether violation of the “knock and announce” rule did not require suppression under the Fourth Amendment?
Discussion:
The Court determined that the exclusionary rule was inapplicable and suppression of the evidence was not warranted because, inter alia, (1) violation of the “knock-and-announce” rule did not require the suppression of all evidence found in the search; (2) the constitutional violation of an illegal manner of entry was not a but-for cause of obtaining the evidence; (3) the interests that were violated, preventing the Government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant, had nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence; and (4) the social costs of applying the exclusionary rule to knock-and-announce violations were considerable, the incentive for such violations was minimal to begin with, and the extant deterrences against them were substantial. The Court affirmed the judgment of the state appellate court.
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.
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.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Stay Conspiracy Waiver
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Stay Conspiracy Waiver
Anthony v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien sought review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals which denied his application for a waiver from deportation under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182(c), and ordered him deported. The alien also sought a stay of deportation pending review.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s motion for a stay of deportation pending review should be granted?
Discussion:
The board concluded that an exercise of discretion in the alien’s favor was not warranted because he had been convicted of conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking, violation of the terms of his probation, and failure to file income tax returns for a period of 15 years outweighed the favorable factors and his one outstanding equity of length residence in the country. Initially, the court granted the stay of deportation pending review because respondent Immigration and Naturalization Service consented. Upon consideration of the deportation order, the court determined that the board’s denial of waiver of deportation was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The court noted that its review was limited to evidence in the administrative record upon which the deportation order was based, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1105(a)(4). The court held that because the alien’s evidence could have been presented during the deportation hearings, it was properly excluded by the board and could not by considered by the court in reviewing the alien’s petition for waiver of deportation. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. The court granted the alien’s motion for a stay of deportation pending review, affirmed the order of the board denying his application for a waiver from deportation, and affirmed order of deportation.
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.
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.
Removal Proceedings Virginia Immigration Board Lawyers
Removal Proceedings Virginia Immigration Board Lawyers
Jamelas V. Athry
Facts:
Petitioner alien, a lawful permanent resident, was placed in removal proceedings after traveling abroad. An immigration judge (IJ) denied the alien’s request for relief and ordered him removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision and denied the alien’s motion to reopen. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision. Certiorari was granted.
Removal Proceedings Virginia Immigration Board Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the Immigration Judge rightly denied the alien’s request for relief and motion to reopen?
Discussion:
Under the law governing at the time of the alien’s plea, an alien in his situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing his resident alien status. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which was enacted in 1996, effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction like the alien’s. Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, the Supreme Court determined that the IIRIRA’s new admission provision, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), did not apply to the alien’s conviction because § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) attached a new disability (denial of reentry) in respect to past events (his pre-IIRIRA offense, plea, and conviction). The alien’s pre-IIRIRA conviction, not present travel, was the wrongful activity Congress targeted in § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The alien engaged in no criminal activity after IIRIRA’s passage. Accordingly the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
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
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.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Aggravated Felony Counsel Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Aggravated Felony Counsel Lawyers
United States v. Jackson
Facts:
Defendant appealed a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington, which convicted defendant of being found in the United States following deportation for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), (b)(2).
Deportation Immigration Virginia Aggravated Felony Counsel Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the underlying deportation hearing was constitutionally vitiated by the denial of Defendant’s right to counsel and whether the district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the indictment?
Discussion:
Two days after being granted Special Agricultural Worker status, defendant murdered a migrant worker. Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, allegedly in partial reliance on statements to his attorney by an unidentified Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) agent that deportation would not ensue, and served 17 months. Subsequently, defendant was arrested for deportation based on his prior conviction. After an extensive evidentiary hearing, the district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss. The district court also rejected defendant’s equitable estoppel arguments and ordered deportation. On appeal, the court determined that the right to legal representation at the deportation hearing did not entitle defendant to have counsel appointed at government expense to represent him. The court found that defendant waived his rights to counsel. The court also found that the INS’s failure to deport defendant immediately after his release was the unintended result of significant understaffing and a substantial backlog, and did not constitute affirmative misconduct by the government. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence for being found in the United States following deportation for an aggravated felony.
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
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.
Removal Immigration Virginia Cancellation Lawful Admission Lawyers
Removal Immigration Virginia Cancellation Lawful Admission Lawyers
FRANCIS V. HOLDER
Facts:
Respondent aliens committed offenses before satisfying the requirements for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b(a), which required holding the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years and living in the United States for at least seven continuous years after a lawful admission. The aliens sought to impute their parents’ years of continuous residence or LPR status to themselves. In two cases, respondent aliens sought cancellation of removal.
Removal Immigration Virginia Cancellation Lawful Admission Lawyers
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied cancellation of removal, rejecting the aliens’ imputation arguments under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b (a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the aliens’ petitions for review and remanded the cases to the BIA. Petitioner Attorney General’s petitions for certiorari were granted and the cases were consolidated.
Issue:
- Whether the alien was allowed to seek relief from removal under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1229b (a)?
Discussion:
The Court determined that the BIA could reasonably conclude that an alien living in the United States as a child must meet those requirements on his own, without counting a parent’s years of residence or immigration status, because the BIA’s approach was based on a permissible construction of the statute since, inter alia, (1) the language of § 1229b(a) at least permitted the BIA to say that “the alien” must meet the statutory conditions independently, without relying on a parent’s history, (2) the Court could not conclude that Congress ratified an imputation requirement when it passed § 1229b(a), and (3) the Court could not read a silent statute as requiring (not merely allowing) imputation just because that rule would be family-friendly. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s judgments and remanded the cases for further proceedings.
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
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.
Overstay Immigration Virginia Deportation Hardship Waiver Jurisdiction Lawyers
Overstay Immigration Virginia Deportation Hardship Waiver Jurisdiction Lawyers
KENNADY V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Facts:
Petitioners came to the U.S. on a seaman’s visa, and overstay his visa by ten years. Respondent, Immigration and Naturalization Service, eventually ordered petitioner to be deported, and petitioner filed a waiver of deportation on the grounds of hardship. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his waiver, and petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied his waiver on the grounds of jurisdiction, holding that under § 244(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), it could only review District Court opinions, and not administrative appeals. Petitioner challenged that decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court. Petitioner deportable alien challenged the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s appeal under § 244(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since the court determined that petitioner did not have a “final order of deportation.”
Overstay Immigration Virginia Deportation Hardship Waiver Jurisdiction Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the Federal Courts of Appeals have the initial, exclusive jurisdiction of the Immigration and Nationality Act, suspension of deportation?
Discussion:
The court held that under the INA, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over “final orders of deportation.” The court determined that this included administrative appeals from the BIA, and remanded for a determination on petitioner’s waiver. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and held that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear final orders of deportation issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and remanded for a determination on petitioner’s waiver of deportation.
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
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
