Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Certiorari
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer Detention Certiorari
McMullen v. United States
Facts:
Petitioner aliens, ordered removed but detained beyond the 90-day removal period, filed habeas corpus petitions challenging their continued detention. In one case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a writ ordering the alien released with conditions. In the second case, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a denial of the petition. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Removal Immigration Virginia Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the Circuit court properly ordered the petitioner’s removal?
Discussion:
Both aliens had become inadmissible because of prior criminal convictions in the United States. The question presented was whether the construction of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(a)(6) adopted in Zadvydas applied to the category of aliens ordered removed who were inadmissible under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1182. The court held that it did. The operative language of 8 U.S.C.S. § 1231(a)(6), “may be detained beyond the removal period,” applied without differentiation to all three categories of aliens that were its subject. Since the Government suggested no reason why the period of time reasonably necessary to effect removal was longer for an inadmissible alien, the six-month presumptive detention period applied. Both aliens were detained well beyond six months after their removal orders became final. The Government having offered nothing to indicate that a substantial likelihood of removal subsisted despite the passage of six months and, indeed, having conceded that it was no longer even involved in repatriation negotiations with Cuba, and the district courts in each case having determined that removal to Cuba was not reasonably foreseeable, the petitions for habeas corpus should have been granted. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and reversed the judgment of the First Circuit, and remanded both cases for proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion
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.
Residence Certificate Immigration Virginia Deportation Certificate Lawyers
Residence Certificate Immigration Virginia Deportation Certificate Lawyers
BENNY V. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE
Facts:
Petitioners, Chinese laborers, filed writs of habeas corpus which were dismissed; the petitioners contested their arrest and detention after two could not produce required certificates of residence and one was denied a certificate. The Act of May 5, 1892 (Act), § 6, ch. 60, required that Chinese laborers found without a certificate after a year of residency be subject to arrest and deportation. The government sought and was awarded dismissal of petitioners’ writs contending that the Act provided that all laws in force prohibiting and regulating the coming into this country of Chinese persons and persons of Chinese descent, were continued for a period of 10 years. The actions at issue were heard in 1893. Petitioners, Chinese laborers, appealed from judgments of dismissal upon writs of habeas corpus from the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York concerning alleged due process violations against them when they were arrested and detained.
Residence Certificate Immigration Virginia Deportation Certificate Lawyers
Issue:
- Whether the petitioner entitled to apply to the collector of internal revenue for a certificate of residence?
Discussion:
The United States Supreme Court held that the given effect to an accepted maxim of international law: that every sovereign nation had the power to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and conditions as it saw fit. Stating that the courts had to uphold acts of Congress regarding residency by foreigners, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the writs of habeas corpus. Dismissal of petitioners’ writs of habeas corpus was affirm
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.
Deportable Alien Immigration Removal Virginia Adjust Status Attorneys
Deportable Alien Immigration Removal Virginia Adjust Status Attorneys
In re FREEMAN, Respondent
Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals
Facts:
The respondent was convicted on March 12, 1990, of shooting at an occupied motor vehicle in violation of California law. On the basis of this conviction, he was charged in 1998 with removability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (Supp. IV 1998). Subsequently, a charge was lodged that he was also removable under section 237(a)(2)(C) because his conviction was for a firearms offense as well. Neither of these grounds of removability has a corresponding ground of inadmissibility. In his decision, the Immigration Judge implied that the respondent was ineligible for a waiver under former section 212(c) of the Act because his conviction was for an offense that rendered him removable on grounds that lacked a comparable ground of inadmissibility. The Respondent appealed.
Deportable Alien Immigration Removal Virginia Adjust Status Attorneys
Issue:
- Whether conviction for an offense that rendered the alien deportable did not preclude a showing of admissibility for purposes of an application for adjustment of status where there was no corresponding ground of inadmissibility for the crime in the statute?
Discussion:
In INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001), the United States Supreme Court determined that restrictions on the availability of section 212(c) relief do not apply retroactively to aliens who pled guilty prior to the April 24, 1996, effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (“AEDPA”). The respondent pled guilty and was convicted prior to the enactment of that statute. Hence, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s St. Cyr ruling, the respondent is not ineligible for a waiver as a result of the AEDPA amendments. Respondent’s offense is one that does not have a statutory counterpart in section 212(a) of the Act. Thus, the new regulation could be read to mandate a denial of section 212(c) relief. However, the Court observed that the regulation was not intended to bar section 212(c) relief in the instant context. Nothing in the context of the regulation or the accompanying commentary indicates that it was intended to overrule the well-established rule in that case that an alien may seek section 212(c) relief, in conjunction with an application for adjustment of status, to waive a ground of inadmissibility that would otherwise bar the alien from establishing eligibility to adjust his or her status. Consequently, the Court ruled that the new regulation does not make the respondent ineligible for section 212(c) relief to the extent that he seeks a waiver, in conjunction with an application for adjustment of status, for an offense that would render him inadmissible under section 212(a). It would be contrary to the holding of St. Cyr to refuse to allow otherwise eligible aliens to seek a waiver in conjunction with an adjustment application solely because the specific regulatory language authorizing that form of relief has been deleted.
The Court concluded that the respondent should be permitted to submit his section 212(c) waiver request with his application for adjustment of status.
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
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.
Inadmissible Alien Immigration Waiver Virginia Lawyers
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
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
