Great Reference for whether burglary offenses in Florida are crimes against moral turpitude and/or aggravated felonies.
PRACTICE ADVISORY The Immigration Consequences Of Florida Burglary By Immigration Clinic University of Miami School of Law February 2015 Link
1 Comment
This chart gives a basic breakdown of the qualifications, standards, and benefits of asylum, Withholding of Removal under INA § 241(b)(3), Withholding of Removal under the Convention Against Torture, and Deferral of Removal under the Convention Against Torture. When filing an I-589 application with either USCIS or the immigration court, 4 different forms of relief are to be considered. Only asylum can be applied for affirmatively (through USCIS), while the other forms or relief are only available defensively (before an immigration judge). When an application for asylum (I-589) is filed with USCIS, it is considered an affirmative asylum application. USCIS can approve the asylum application or refer it to an immigration judge in immigration court. A referral of an asylum application is not a denial of the asylum application. USCIS has referred it to the immigration judge because there may be some outstanding factual or legal issues, for which the immigration judge needs to rule on.
The applicant will receive an official notice from USCIS referring him/her to the immigration judge. The applicant will then later receive a Notice to Appear (immigration court charging document) and then a Notice of Hearing directing the applicant to appear in immigration court on a specific date. Once in immigration court, the immigration judge conducts a “de novo” hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. Additional and supplemental documents can be filed with the immigration court in support of the asylum application. An individual hearing will then be scheduled by the immigration judge. At the individual hearing, the applicant will testify on his/her own behalf, and present any additional evidence or witnesses in support of his/her application. The applicant may be cross-examined by the DHS trial attorney and/or by the immigration judge. At the conclusion of the individual hearing, the immigration judge will render a decision as to the grant or denial of asylum. The immigration judge will also consider and rule on whether the applicant should be granted withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3), withholding of removal under CAT (Convention against Torture), and deferral of removal under CAT. A denial of asylum, withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3), and/or withholding/deferral of removal under CAT, by the immigration judge can be appealed to the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals) within 30 days of the immigration judge’s decision. 1. Deferral Under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) granted to detained individual from Romania who suffers from sever mental illnesses.
2. Immigration Judge held that a conviction for Trafficking in Amphetamine in violation of Fla. Stat. §893.135(1)(f)(1)(a) is not an aggravated felony under INA §101(a) (43)(B): illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18). 3. Immigration Judge held that possession of cocaine with intent to purchase in violation of Fla. Stat. §893.13(1)(a)(1990) is not an aggravated felony under INA §101(a) (43)(B): illicit trafficking in a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), including a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of Title 18). 4. Immigration Judge terminated proceedings holding that Fla. Stat. 540.11(3)(a)(3)(Unauthorized Sale of Sound Articles) is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Recent immigration court rulings have held that Fla. Stat. 812.014(2)(c)(1) [grand theft] (petty theft included) is not a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), if the record of conviction (modified categorical approach) can not establish whether Respondent was convicted for temporary or permanent deprivation and appropriation. Further, retail theft (shoplifting) under Fla. Stat. 812.014 is not a CIMT and that Matter of Jurado-Degado 24 I&N Dec. 29, 33 (BIA 2006) is not applicable to the Florida statute. If the respondent is only removable/inadmissible for the Fla. theft offense, termination of the case may be appropriate. Further, these Fla. theft charges should not trigger stop-time rule for cancellation of removal purposes, and may not constitute aggravated felonies (even if 1 year of imprisonment). See attached file for sample motion to terminate.
|
AuthorJames C. Tai, Esq. Categories
All
|