Deportation Virginia Immigration Lawyer Danger On Return To Home Country
Deportation Virginia Immigration Lawyer Danger On Return To Home Country
Jerry v. Commonwealth
Facts:
A juvenile and domestic relations district court granted custody of the alien to his brother-in-law when the alien was 17, and denied the alien’s petition for special findings. The circuit court found no provision for such findings to simply be made independent of decisions regarding long-term foster care in the Virginia statutes.
Deportation Virginia Immigration Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether there was any imminent danger to the alien to return to his home country?
Discussions:
Once the alien reached the age of 18, he could not be considered “dependent” on a juvenile court in the Commonwealth of Virginia. There was also no evidence presented any harm would come from returning him to his parents other than the alien’s bare assertions as no one had been able to make any contact with his parents. There was particularly no evidence presented of any danger to the alien being returned to his home country. It was obvious that the petition for custody was simply a vehicle to get the alien into a juvenile court proceeding to utilize the special immigrant status provisions of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(27)(J). However, the alien’s immigration status was to be determined by the United States Government, not by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
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 Virginia Immigration Lawyer Bona fide Resident Refrained From Paying Taxes
Deportation Virginia Immigration Lawyer Bona fide Resident Refrained From Paying Taxes
Kennedy v. Kennedy
Facts:
Appellant wife appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Virginia), which dismissed her divorce suit for lack of jurisdiction.
Deportation Virginia Immigration Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the appellant wife was a bona fide resident of Virginia?
Discussion:
On appeal from a final order dismissing her divorce suit for lack of jurisdiction, appellant argued that the trial court erred in ruling that she was not a bona fide resident of Virginia. Appellant resided in Virginia on a G-4 visa, a non-immigration visa issued to foreign nationals who live in the United States while working for certain international organizations. Despite appellant’s claimed intention to remain indefinitely in Virginia, the court noted that appellant had made no attempt to secure citizenship or an immigration visa while living here. Furthermore, the court noted that appellant had refrained from paying federal or state income taxes, availing herself of the exemption afforded alien employees, such as she. The court held that appellant’s actions were inconsistent with an intent to become a permanent, bona fide resident and domiciliary of Virginia.
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 Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Unlawful Illegal Reentry 8 USCS 1326
United States v. Henry
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, for unlawful reentry of a deported alien under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). Although a jury also convicted defendant of one count of social security fraud and one count of credit card fraud, he did not appeal these convictions.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(d) should be vacated?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that his illegal reentry conviction under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(d) should be vacated as he satisfied the three requirements for a collateral attack of a prior deportation order under § 1326(d); the appellate court agreed. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) did not provide defendant with written notice of the deportation hearing as the statute required, therefore defendant satisfied the first two requirements for a collateral attack under § 1326(d). The U.S. argued that defendant could not meet the exhaustion requirement because he never appealed the immigration judge’s order of deportation to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs within 30 days; however, because the INS never sent defendant written notice of the deportation hearing, defendant did not appear and, thus, was never informed of his right to appeal to seek administrative and judicial review. The INS’s failure to provide notice of the hearing deprived defendant of the opportunity to contest the charges or otherwise seek relief from deportation from the administrative tribunal and, as it was possible defendant would not have been deported, defendant met the fundamental unfairness requirement. The appellate court vacated the illegal reentry conviction and remanded the case to the district court for re-sentencing.
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 Drug Trafficking Conviction Enhancement
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Drug Trafficking Conviction Enhancement
United States v. Watson
Facts:
Defendant pled guilty to violating 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He appealed his 30-month below-U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) sentence, arguing that the United States District Court for the District of Virginia erred in making a 16-level increase under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (2010), based on a prior drug conviction which had been vacated.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the district court erred in applying enhancement based on defendant’s prior drug-trafficking conviction?
Discussion:
As he did in the district court, defendant relied on the Mejia decision. However, that decision was not helpful, and the weight of circuit authority was contrary to his position. The relevant time for determining whether his prior conviction qualified for enhancement was the date of his deportation rather than the date of his sentencing for illegal reentry. At the time of his deportation in 2008, he had the requisite qualifying felony drug trafficking conviction. Additionally, to the extent that he relied on the Padilla decision, his claim was unsupported by the record, which did not disclose the reason his conviction was vacated. While § 2L1.2, cmt., application n. 1(B)(vii) and n. 14 cross referenced to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, they do so only with respect to the meaning of sentence imposed and three or more convictions. The Reinoso decision did not hold, as defendant asserted, that there was in general no distinction between the criminal history calculation and the offense level calculation in applying the USSG. The district court did not err in applying the enhancement based on defendant’s prior drug-trafficking conviction even though it had been vacated. Defendant’s conviction 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 Immigration Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Unreasonable Sentence
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Unreasonable Sentence
United States v. Jewel
Facts:
Defendant appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal following conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a), and (b)(2) (2006). At sentencing, the district court departed upward from defendant’s initially calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 41 months to 51 months, and sentenced him to 65 months’ imprisonment.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable?
Discussion:
On appeal, defendant argued that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Defendant first argued that the district court’s upward departure by two criminal history categories was not warranted. The district court noted that defendant’s immediate return to the United States after deportation, which occurred following his release from a three-year sentence imposed after his conviction for aggravated sexual battery of a child less than thirteen years of age, was not adequately reflected in the initially calculated U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. The district court then integrated consideration of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors and concluded, in defendant’s case, criminal history categories II and III were inadequate to promote respect for the law, provide for deterrence, protect the community, and reflect the nature and circumstance of the offense of conviction. The court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable in light of the seriousness of defendant’s criminal history and the district court’s reasoned analysis of the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court affirmed the judgment.
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 Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Aggravated Felony Bond Hearing
Ahmad v. Alex
Facts:
After he was arrested and charged with removability for having committed an aggravated felony, petitioner permanent resident moved for a bond hearing which an immigration judge denied. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition which was granted, in part, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia remanded the matter to the immigration court with instructions to hold a bond hearing. Respondent government officials appealed.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether a deportable criminal alien who was not immediately taken into federal custody upon his release from other custody, was exempt from 8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention provision and whether he was entitled to a bond hearing?
Discussion:
The issue was whether, as the district court held, petitioner, a deportable criminal alien who was not immediately taken into federal custody upon his release from other custody, was exempt from 8 U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)’s mandatory detention provision and therefore was entitled to a bond hearing. The court disagreed. Although § 1226(c) was arguably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the interpretation of the statute by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in In re Rojas, was a permissible, and more plausible, construction. The interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference. While the court agreed that Congress’s command to the Attorney General to detain criminal aliens “when released” from other custody connoted some degree of immediacy, the court could not conclude that Congress clearly intended to exempt a criminal alien from mandatory detention and make him eligible for release on bond if the alien was not immediately taken into federal custody. Furthermore, the court deferred to the BIA without invoking the rule of lenity because the conditional requirement needed to invoke the rule of lenity–that the statutory ambiguity was grievous–did not exist in the case. The court reversed and remanded.
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.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Crime-of-violence Certiorari
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Crime-of-violence Certiorari
Garthan v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner permanent resident alien sued respondent United States Attorney General, seeking review of a deportation order following his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and causing serious bodily injury in an accident, in violation of Florida law. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the petition. Certiorari was granted to resolve a conflict among the United States Courts of Appeals.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the DUI offense was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 16(a)?
Discussion:
Certiorari was granted to determine whether state DUI offenses similar to Fla. Stat. ch. 316.193(3)(c)(2), which either did not have a mens rea component or required only a showing of negligence in the operation of a vehicle, qualified as a crime of violence under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43) and 18 U.S.C.S. § 16. The alien’s DUI offense was not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 16(a) as the statute’s key phrase, the use of physical force against the person or property of another, suggested a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct. The DUI conviction was not a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 16(b) for similar reasons; it required a higher mens rea than the merely accidental or negligent conduct involved in a DUI offense. The ordinary meaning of the term “crime of violence,” combined with 18 U.S.C.S. § 16′s emphasis on the use of physical force against another person (or the risk of having to use such force in committing a crime), suggested a category of violent, active crimes that did not include DUI offenses. Thus, 18 U.S.C.S. § 16 could not be read to include the alien’s conviction for DUI causing serious bodily injury under Florida law. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded 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 Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Moral Turpitude Misconduct
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer Moral Turpitude Misconduct
Block Marthur v. United States
Facts:
Block is a native and citizen of South Africa who entered the United States as an immigrant, he planned to travel to South Africa, and in connection with his proposed journey, he prepared a list of goods he intended to take with him: he knowingly tendered fraudulent checks on a closed bank account bearing the name of one of his aliases and used these checks to acquire the goods. On or about January 2, 1997, Block went to the Spotsylvania Shopping Mall to begin carrying out his criminal activity. Block’s check, failed to clear, and, while attempting to depart from Jewelry Store, he was arrested. Subsequently, Block was convicted of grand larceny by false pretenses for tendering a fraudulent check to Department Store, and of attempted grand larceny by false pretenses for attempting to tender another fraudulent check to Jewelry Store. He was convicted of grand larceny and attempted grand larceny in Virginia and a show cause order was issued by appellee. Appellant was ordered deported under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an alien who had committed two separate crimes of moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct; the board affirmed. Appellant petitioned for review.
Deportation Alexandria Virginia Lawyer
Issues:
- Whether there was an err in appellant deportation order by BIA, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii)? Whether the appellant crimes arose from a single scheme of criminal misconduct?
Discussion:
The courts have recognized that neither § 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii) nor its legislative history sheds light on what constitutes a “single scheme of criminal misconduct” for purposes of deporting aliens, thereby finding the statutory language ambiguous. Appellant was convicted of two separate offenses; there were separate victims; appellant had the opportunity to reflect upon one crime before committing the other, yet he elected not to disassociate himself from his criminal misconduct; and while the crimes occurred at the same mall within a short timeframe, appellant tendered two separate checks, and the two separate instances were removed in time. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the deportation order in deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute.
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 Jurisdiction Malicious Wounding
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Jurisdiction Malicious Wounding
James v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant challenged his sentence on a charge of malicious wounding in the Circuit Court of York County, Virginia, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the sentence after previously vacating his conviction, and that his conviction either violated his right to speedy trial or to be free from double jeopardy, or was predicated upon the Commonwealth’s breach of his plea agreement.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether order vacating the guilty plea and suspending his sentence was a final disposition of the matter?
Discussions:
Because defendant was a deportable alien, the court allowed him to withdraw his original guilty plea to a felony. The trial judge agreed to vacate the finding of guilt, suspend imposition of sentence for three years, and ordered three years of supervised probation with special conditions. During the three-year suspension period, defendant was arrested and charged with several new offenses, and for violating the conditions of the prior order. The judge then imposed a sentence, and defendant appealed. First, defendant argued that the order vacating the guilty plea and suspending his sentence was a final disposition of the matter, rendering the subsequent conviction void, but the court ruled that having asked the trial judge to avoid convicting him of a felony, defendant could not assume an inconsistent position by arguing that the judge erred in responding favorably to his request. The trial court had retained jurisdiction over the matter. The court found that double jeopardy and speedy trial rights were not implicated by the sentencing arrangement. The court also rejected an argument that defendant’s brother had been the possessor of a weapon that had been in joint control.
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.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
