These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
Oklahoma crimes
The Fifth Circuit has determined that 8 USC § 1227(a)(2)(C), which defines the firearms deportability ground, does not encompass offenses involving the transportation of firearms. As such, the petitioner, who had been convicted of transporting a firearm in Oklahoma, remained eligible for cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents.
The full text of Flores Abarca v. Barr can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-60236-CV0.pdf
The Eighth Circuit has determined that an Oklahoma conviction for voluntary manslaughter qualifies as a violent felony under the residual clause of the federal sentencing guidelines. Given the similarity between the residual clause and the definition of a crime of violence in 8 USC 16(b), this case could have persuasive impact on immigration proceedings in circuits that have not struck down 8 USC 16(b) as unconstitutionally vague.
The full text of US v. Steward can be found here:
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/01/163886P.pdf
The Fifth Circuit has addressed whether Oklahoma drug convictions are categorically controlled substance offenses. The breadth of the Oklahoma schedules facially extends beyond those substances that are controlled under federal law. Specifically, the Oklahoma schedules contain at least two substances (Salvia Divinorum and Salvinorin A) that are not included in any federal schedule. The court declined to assess whether the Oklahoma statute is divisible, or whether the modified categorical approach applies. However, the court rejected the petitioner's argument because he provided no case law to show that Oklahoma actually prosecutes offenses involving Salvia Divinorum and Salvinorin A, and thus, had not established a realistic probability that the petitioner's conviction involved substances not included in the Controlled Substances Act.
The full text of Rodriguez Vazquez v. Sessions can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/16/16-60211-CV0.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has determined that a conviction in Oklahoma for transporting a firearm qualifies as a firearms offense under section 212(a)(2)(C) of the INA. Even though this section of the INA does not explicitly encompass transportation of a firearm (but rather includes possession, sale, use, ownership, purchase, and exchanging of a firearm), the Board determined that the broad wording indicated an intent to encompass all convictions related to firearms.
The full text of Matter of Flores-Abarca can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit, in a criminal sentencing case, has determined than an Oklahoma conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon qualifies as a crime of violence. The court recognized that assault and battery in Oklahoma includes only slight touching, not sufficient to constitute violent force as required to be a crime of violence. However, the court determined that the required use of a dangerous weapon necessarily meant that the defendant was convicted of using violent force, above the slight touching required for assault and battery without a weapon. Given the similarity between a crime of violence in the criminal context and a crime of violence in the immigration context, this case may have persuasive value in the immigration context.
The full text of US v. Taylor can be found here:
The Tenth Circuit determined that a conviction for receipt of stolen property in Oklahoma qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude even though it does no require a permanent taking. The fact that the defendant must know the property is stolen is sufficient to implicate morally turpitudinous conduct. The court acknowledged that its decision was at odds with Ninth Circuit precedent.
The full text of Obregon v. Lynch can be found here: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-9601.pdf
