The Seventh Circuit has affirmed that a pardon from a state governor does not impact any inadmissibility consequences of the pardoned crime.
The full text of Wojciechowicz v. Garland can be found here:
Viewing entries tagged
#crimmigration
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a Connecticut conviction for larceny is not a theft-related aggravated felonies because it includes theft-by-fraud offenses. The Board concluded that the statute is both overbroad and indivisible.
The full text of Matter of Morgan can be found here:
A conviction for armed robbery in Massachusetts requires the prosecution to prove two elements: (1) the defendant committed a robbery; and (2) the defendant was in possession of a weapon. The robbery can be committed in one of two ways: (1) by force and violence (i.e., the actual force prong) or (2) by assault and putting in fear. Under either prong, the degree of force is immaterial, so long as it is sufficient to obtain the property against the victim's will. It is not necessary that the victim be placed in fear. In addition, the defendant need not use the weapon during the commission of the robbery, nor need the victim be aware of the weapon.
Under these circumstances, the court determined that a conviction for armed robbery in Massachusetts does not meet the definition of a violent felony, which requires a statute include as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. Because the degree of force is immaterial, any force, however slight, will satisfy this prong so long as the victim is aware of it. This does not meet the violent force requirement for a violent felony. Moreover, since the statute does not require the use or threatened use of the weapon, the fact that a defendant must be armed does not transform the conviction into a violent felony. Given the similarity in the definition of a violent felony for sentencing purposes and a crime of violence for immigration purposes, this decision could be excellent persuasive authority for arguing that a Massachusetts conviction for armed robbery is not a crime of violence.
The full text of US v. Parnell can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/04/12/14-30208.pdf
Crimmigration gurus unite! OK -- that might just be me. Today the Ninth Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in Almanza-Arenas v. Holder. The court determined that section 10851(a) of the California Penal Code (vehicle theft) is not a crime involving moral turpitude because it does not require a permanent taking. Rather, the language "with the intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive" defined alternative means of committing the same crime, but did not define alternative elements of that crime.
While this, on its own, would have been a nice result for immigrants with California convictions, the Ninth Circuit went a step further, and overruled its previous decision in Young v. Holder, which stated that an inconclusive record of conviction was insufficient to meet a non-citizen's burden or proving his eligibility for immigration benefits. In plain(er) English, when a conviction contains alternative elements, some of which match the definition of a crime involving moral turpitude and some of which do not, a non-citizen no longer must conclusively prove that he was not convicted of the elements that do not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude in order to qualify for cancellation of removal. Instead, if the criminal record is unclear about which elements he was convicted of, he is eligible for immigration relief. For those of you who aren't super crimmigration nerds like me, you'll have to take my word for this: Almanza-Arenas will have widespread, positive impact on immigration cases throughout the Ninth Circuit. It's a good day for immigration attorneys and their clients with criminal histories who are fighting removal proceedings and trying desperately to remain in the United States with their loved ones!
The full text of the decision can be read here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/11/10/09-71415.pdf