Musings on Immigration

On February 28, 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedent decision opening new avenues of relief for many individuals with old criminal convictions they otherwise thought would forever prevent them from seeking relief before an Immigration Judge.  See Matter of Ezzat H. Abdelghany , 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014) .  This BIA Decision held that "[a] lawful permanent resident who is otherwise eligible for relief under former section 212(c) of the Act may apply for such relief in removal or deportation proceedings without regard to whether the relevant conviction resulted from a plea agreement or a trial and without regard to whether he or she was removable or deportable under the law in effect when the conviction was entered".  Id. Until this Decision was issued, those who were found guilty of a crime after a jury trial entered before April 24, 1996, were not eligible to apply for discretionary relief under former section 212(c) of the Act.  Former 212(...

Another bad decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, February 19, 2010 — more often in recent months the Department of Homeland Security is trying (successfully sometimes) to go behind a state court’s conviction records to sustain removability charges against an individual in immigration proceedings. Obviously the line between federal and state is becoming very blurred, and it seems as though regardless of the conviction issued by a state court, federal court judges have free will to re-define the actual meaning of a conviction!! It is difficult enough when the immigration laws treat certain misdemeanor convictions as felonies, but the added burden of having to argue against the admission of facts, evidence, police reports, etc., is ridiculous!! Why not just combine state court and immigration court proceedings, and make life that much easier for the government?! This is absurd and immigration judges should not have discretion to re-try a case which has already been decided...