Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Elizabeth v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner alien sought review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals of respondent Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), which denied her motion to reopen her deportation proceedings to allow her to apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Lawyer Status Adjustment Marriage
Issue:
- Whether the Petitioner’s motion to reopen her deportation proceedings to allow her to apply for adjustment of status based on her marriage to a United States citizen has to be granted?
Discussion:
The alien entered the United States as a non-immigrant visitor authorized to stay for six months. She worked illegally as a customer service representative for a bank. The INS initiated deportation proceedings against her because she remained in the United States longer than permitted and because she engaged in unauthorized employment. She was later convicted of embezzlement. At the deportation hearing, the Immigration Judge found that the alien was deportable as charged, and that she was ineligible for voluntary departure because of the embezzlement conviction. The INS sent her a deportation notice by certified mail, however, she failed to report for deportation. The alien married a United States citizen, and had a child. She filed a motion with the Board to reopen her deportation hearing. The Board denied the motion, reasoning that because she had failed to obey a lawful deportation order, the Board would not exercise discretion in her favor. In balancing the equities, the Board denied the alien’s motion to reopen because she ignored her deportation notices. The court held that this was a rational explanation for its denial. The court affirmed the Board’s order against the alien. The court denied the petition for review.
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 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 Suspension Immigration Virginia Voluntary Departure Lawyers
Deportation Suspension Immigration Virginia Voluntary Departure Lawyers
Kelvin v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
Facts:
Petitioner sought review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals which determined that petitioner was ineligible for suspension of deportation.
Deportation Suspension Immigration Virginia Voluntary Departure Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals had erred in determining that the petitioner was ineligible for suspension of deportation?
Discussion:
Petitioner sought review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which determined that petitioner was ineligible for suspension of deportation. In affirming the decision, the court held that Congress intended that the “continuous physical presence” requirement of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1254(a)(1) be applied in a rigorous manner. The court believed that Congress intended for the “continuous physical presence” requirement to be applied strictly to exclude aliens who were deliberately flouting immigration laws by the processes of gaining admission into the United States illegally or ostensibly as nonimmigrants, but with the intention of establishing themselves in a situation in which they may subsequently have had access to some administrative remedy to adjust their status to that of permanent residents. The court stated that any roots petitioner established in the United States were put down with the knowledge that his stay in this country was temporary, and therefore any plans or expectations for the future that he might have developed could not have been legitimate ones. The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals holding that while petitioner’s grant of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation was not a “final order of deportation,” his one-day departure from the country under that grant must be regarded as “meaningfully interruptive” of his continuous physical presence in the United States
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 Consequence Virginia Ineffective Assistance Attorneys
Removal Immigration Consequence Virginia Ineffective Assistance Attorneys
THURMAN V. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Facts:
The defendant Thurman pleaded guilty to two felony offenses and judgment was entered. Almost 10 years later, he filed a motion seeking to vacate the judgment on the grounds (1) the trial court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea before accepting his plea, as required by Penal Code section 1016.5, and (2) the public defenders who represented defendant provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate the charged offenses, explain the case and the immigration consequences of a guilty plea to him, and negotiate a more favorable plea agreement.
Removal Immigration Consequence Virginia Ineffective Assistance Attorneys
Issues:
- Whether trial court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences that might result from pleading guilty to the charged offenses, as required by section 1016.5?
- Whether the trial court did not err by refusing to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel?
Discussion:
Here, defendant and his attorney signed the guilty plea form, and defendant initialed the provision that stated: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United Stated the conviction for the offense charged may have the consequence of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” This provision “contains all components of an adequate warning of the consequences for a noncitizen of pleading guilty to a felony offense,” and defendant does not contend otherwise. Defendant also initialed the statement that he signed the guilty plea form under penalty of perjury, declaring that he had read, discussed with his attorney, understood, and personally initialed each item. Defendant’s signature follows this statement. The record does not contain any evidence that defendant did not read or understand the guilty plea form before signing it. Defendant’s counsel signed the guilty plea form, asserting he had explained each of the rights listed in the form to defendant. In addition, the trial court’s minute order reflects that defendant had been advised of the consequences of pleading guilty if he was not a citizen. We therefore conclude the record shows the requirements of section 1016.5 were satisfied and the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of conviction. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment after defendant failed to present any competent evidence that his public defenders failed to provide complete and accurate advice on the immigration consequences he faced after he entered a guilty plea to the charged offenses. On the other hand, the record contained the guilty plea form signed by defendant which showed defendant had personally discussed the possibility that he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea with one of his public defenders. Unlike the Kentucky Supreme Court in Padilla, the trial court here did not deny the motion on the ground the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel did not protect defendant from his counsel’s failure to accurately advise on immigration consequences. Because defendant failed to show that his counsel’s representation fell below the standard of care, the trial court did not err by denying his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground.
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 Detention Refugee Lawyers
Deportation Immigration Virginia Detention Refugee Lawyers
EMINA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Facts:
The refugee, who was a religious and ethnic refugee, immigrated to the United States from the Ukraine. He was convicted of conducting espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union and, after serving his sentence, was ordered deported back to the Soviet Union. The refugee appealed after the trial court denied his petition for habeas corpus review in two separate orders, which included the decision of the immigration service to continue pre-deportation detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.S. § 1252(c), and the appeals board’s dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his motion to reopen deportation proceedings.
Deportation Immigration Virginia Detention Refugee Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the district court properly denied the appellant’s habeas corpus petition seeking review of respondent immigration service’s decision to continue his pre-deportation detention?
Discussion:
The Court held that it is clear that the BIA correctly denied asylum and withholding of deportation because reasonable grounds existed for regarding Ogorodnikov as a danger to the security of the United States. The Board also properly held that Ogorodnikov was not entitled to designate a new country of deportation. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a) provides a three-step process for designating a country of deportation. The first opportunity to designate a country goes to the alien, who must do so “promptly.” The Board found “no contention or any indication in the record that [Ogorodnikov] was not afforded a full opportunity to designate a country of deportation at the time of the deportation proceedings.” Once the alien forgoes this opportunity, § 1253(a) allows the INS to designate any country of which the alien is a subject, national, or citizen. The INS designated the U.S.S.R., which, as the Board noted, was a proper designation at the time. Obviously, the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 makes that designation inoperative. In our view, however, this development does not moot the deportation order; it merely requires an amendment. In view of the above, this court affirmed the judgment of the district 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.
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
