These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
forfeiture
The Eleventh Circuit has determined that a litigant who withdrew his appeal and ask to be deported forfeited his right to judicial review of his citizenship claim.
The full text of Clement v. U.S. Attorney General can be found here:
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202113382.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an immigration judge may look at the order of forfeiture to determine the loss to victims in a fraud-related aggravated felony analysis “if the proceeds received are sufficiently tethered and traceable to the conduct of conviction.” “Additionally, in conspiracy convictions, only the proceeds personally acquired by an individual conspirator may be subject to forfeiture—there is no joint and several liability. Therefore, in application, only specific proceeds received by the defendant can be subject to forfeiture, rather than the amount that was received by the entire criminal enterprise.”
The BIA further determined that the conviction was a particularly serious crime, barring withholding of removal. “The nature of the respondent’s conviction, which involves attempting or conspiring to obtain money or property through fraud, brings it within the ambit of a particularly serious crime.”
The full text of Matter of F-R-A can be found here:
The Ninth Circuit has determined that in certain instances, the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) can decline to address a new argument made on appeal, such as the proffer of a new particular social group not raised before the Immigration Judge. “Waiver and forfeiture are an important part of any adjudicative system, whether judicial or administrative. These doctrines preserve the integrity of the appellate structure by ensuring that an issue must be presented to, considered and decided by the trial court before it can be raised on appeal. Particularly when the issue requires resolving disputed facts, such presentation is crucial because it allows the adjudicator with the best understanding of the case to make an initial determination, make the necessary findings, and conduct any additional proceedings necessary to reach a fair and just result. Waiver and forfeiture also encourage the orderly litigation and settlement of claims by preventing parties from withholding ‘secondary, back-up theories at the trial court level, thus allowing party-opponents to appraise frankly the claims and issues at hand and respond appropriately.” However, the court decided to “leave it to another case to decide what standard of review we should apply to the Board’s decision to invoke such default, and what showing a non-citizen must make to the immigration judge to preserve an argument for Board review.”
The full text of Honcharov v. Barr can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/05/29/15-71554.pdf
