Deportation Immigration Virginia Defects Judicial review Discretionary Lawyer
Deportation Immigration Virginia Defects Judicial review Discretionary Lawyer
United States v. Evan
Facts:
Defendant, a citizen of Spain who resided in the United States as a permanent resident alien, sought review of a decision by the District Court. The district court had denied the alien’s motion to dismiss an indictment filed by plaintiff United States of America (INS) alleging that the alien had reentered the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Defects Judicial review Discretionary Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defects in the deportation proceeding effectively precluded defendant’s right to judicial review?
Discussion:
The INS issued a warrant for the alien’s deportation based upon a criminal record that included convictions for several offenses. The alien was deported to Spain but was subsequently found residing in Virginia and was indicted for re-entry after deportation. The alien claimed that his deportation hearing had been fundamentally unfair because he had not intelligently waived his right to judicial review and was not provided a copy of Form I-618 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(a). The trial court ruled that the deportation hearing was not fundamentally unfair and that the immigration judge had fully advised the alien of his right to counsel and his right to seek discretionary suspension of deportation. The alien pled guilty under an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court held that the record was not sufficiently developed on the issue of whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order. The alien’s claims that he had not intelligently waived his right to counsel and that his right to apply for discretionary suspension of deportation had not been adequately explained to him were meritless. The court remanded the case to the trial court to develop the record regarding whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order.
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 Judicial Review Right Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Judicial Review Right Lawyers
United States v. Martin
Facts:
Defendant, a citizen of Spain who resided in the United States as a permanent resident alien, sought review of a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court had denied the alien’s motion to dismiss an indictment filed by plaintiff United States of America (INS) alleging that the alien had reentered the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326
Deportation Immigration Virginia Judicial Review Right Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the defects in the deportation proceeding effectively precluded Defendant’s right to judicial review?
Discussion:
The INS issued a warrant for the alien’s deportation based upon a criminal record that included convictions for several offenses. The alien was deported to Spain but was subsequently found residing in Virginia and was indicted for re-entry after deportation. The alien claimed that his deportation hearing had been fundamentally unfair because he had not intelligently waived his right to judicial review and was not provided a copy of Form I-618 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(a). The trial court ruled that the deportation hearing was not fundamentally unfair and that the immigration judge had fully advised the alien of his right to counsel and his right to seek discretionary suspension of deportation. The alien pled guilty under an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court held that the record was not sufficiently developed on the issue of whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order. The alien’s claims that he had not intelligently waived his right to counsel and that his right to apply for discretionary suspension of deportation had not been adequately explained to him were meritless. The court remanded the case to the trial court to develop the record regarding whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order
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 Notice Appeal Judicial Review Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Notice Appeal Judicial Review Lawyers
United States v. Justin
Facts:
In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, defendant was convicted of one count of illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a). Defendant appealed. Defense counsel filed brief.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Notice Appeal Judicial Review Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on a collateral attack of his underlying deportation order?
Discussion:
Defense counsel raised the potential issue that the district court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on a collateral attack of his underlying deportation order. The appellate court held that defendant had not established the prerequisites for a collateral attack on his deportation order. At the deportation proceeding before the immigration judge, he was advised of, and reserved, his right to appeal. He then filed a notice of appeal, but he failed to file a timely brief. Defendant was therefore responsible for his failure to obtain judicial review of his removal order. Thus, the deportation proceeding against defendant did not deprive him of judicial review, and defendant had not exhausted his administrative remedies. The appellate court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence.
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.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Indictment Denial Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Indictment Denial Lawyers
United States v. George
Facts:
In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt, defendant was convicted for unauthorized reentry of a deported alien after conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. §§ 1326(a), (b). Defendant claimed on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment
Deportation Immigration Virginia Indictment Denial Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment?
Discussion:
Defendant argued that his summary removal under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (VWPP) did not amount to a deportation as that term is used in 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326. The appellate court found that defendant could not collaterally attack his prior deportation order because he failed to show that it was obtained under conditions that were fundamentally unfair. The parties stipulated in the district court that (1) defendant entered the United States through the VWPP in 1992; (2) all visa waiver applicants under the VWPP were required to complete, sign and date an I-94W form; (3) the I-94W form included a waiver of rights whereby the applicant agreed to waive his rights to review of any action taken in deportation proceedings; and (4) the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), in the ordinary course of business, destroyed the original form and reduced the information from the form into its database. Given these stipulations, the appellate court found that defendant validly waived any right to review of the INS’s determination of deportability. The appellate court upheld the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment and affirmed his conviction for illegal reentry
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 Reentry Indictment Dismissed Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Reentry Indictment Dismissed Lawyers
United States v.William
Facts:
Defendant, a citizen of Spain who resided in the United States as a permanent resident alien, sought review of a decision by the United States District Court. The district court had denied the alien’s motion to dismiss an indictment filed by plaintiff United States of America (INS) alleging that the alien had reentered the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Reentry Indictment Dismissed Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the district court denying a motion to dismiss defendant’s indictment for reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326?
Discussion:
The INS issued a warrant for the alien’s deportation based upon a criminal record that included convictions for several offenses. The alien was deported to Spain but was subsequently found residing in Maryland and was indicted for re-entry after deportation. The alien claimed that his deportation hearing had been fundamentally unfair because he had not intelligently waived his right to judicial review and was not provided a copy of Form I-618 as required by 8 C.F.R. § 242.16(a). The trial court ruled that the deportation hearing was not fundamentally unfair and that the immigration judge had fully advised the alien of his right to counsel and his right to seek discretionary suspension of deportation. The alien pled guilty under an agreement that preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court held that the record was not sufficiently developed on the issue of whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order. The alien’s claims that he had not intelligently waived his right to counsel and that his right to apply for discretionary suspension of deportation had not been adequately explained to him were meritless. The court remanded the case to the trial court to develop the record regarding whether the alien intelligently waived his right to appeal the deportation order.
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
