Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
J-G-, AXX XXX 110 (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)

J-G-, AXX XXX 110 (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 342|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a motion to remand upon finding the respondent, who was convicted of a removable offense following a jury trial, was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA 212(c). The Board noted that while the Sixth Circuit held in Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, (6th Cir. 2010), that waivers under 212(c) were not available to those whose convictions were obtained following a jury trial, the Board concluded otherwise in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014). The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland and joined by Member Roger Pauley and Member Anne Greer.
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) granted a motion to remand upon finding the respondent, who was convicted of a removable offense following a jury trial, was eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA 212(c). The Board noted that while the Sixth Circuit held in Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, (6th Cir. 2010), that waivers under 212(c) were not available to those whose convictions were obtained following a jury trial, the Board concluded otherwise in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I&N Dec. 254 (BIA 2014). The decision was written by Member Linda Wendtland and joined by Member Roger Pauley and Member Anne Greer.

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Apr 16, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Marshal E Hyman
   
Executive Oce r Immigaion Review
Board of Immigaton Appeals Oce of the Clerk
507 Leeb Pke Ste 2 Fas Church, Vlgina 253
Marshal E. Hyman
&
Associates, PC. 3250
W
Big Beaver Road Sute 529 Toy, Ml 48084-2902 DHSICE Ofice of Chief Counsel DE 333 Mt Elliott St Rm 204 Detroit Ml 48207 Name:J
-
G A 10 Date of this notce 4/9/2014
Encosed is  copy of he Boad's decision and oder in he bove-refeenced case. Enclose
P Mb: , R dd, Ld  G A 
Sinceel,
O
c
at
Don C Chief Clek
yg  k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: J-G-, AXXX XXX 110 (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
 
·
U.S Depatment of Justice
Executive Oce
r
Imation Reiew Decisio of the Board of Imigrato Appeals Fals Church, Virginia
20530
File
-
10 Detoit, Mne
a�
 EMOVL PROCEEDNGS APPEL ND MOTON ON BEHLF OF RESPONDENT Mshal E. Hyman, Esqe ON BEHLF OF DHS Senio toey  CHRE Date  Notice Sec 237(a)(2)()(iii), &N ct [USC § 1227(a)()()(iii)]  Convicte of aggavate lony PPLCTON Temination of poceeings; wves of inamissibility
APR
l 2014
The esponent appeals the mmigaon Jges Jny 30, 2012, ecision ing him emovable as chge an enying his applications  waives of inamissibility ne me section 212(c) of the mmigation an Nationality ct,  US.C § 112(c), n section 212(h) of  the ct Ding the penency of his appeal, the esponent le a motion to eman The motion will be gnte, an the eco will be emane to the mmigation Jge  he poceeings consistent with this opinion   enty of a new ecision The esponent aises seveal ments on appeal Fist, the esponent contens that the mmigation Jge ee in ning
h
emovable as chge base on is
197, conviction  assalt with intent to o geat boily ham in violation of Michigan eneal Laws section 7504 becase his conviction peates the ntiDg bse ct of 19 (D")  sbseqent enments to the ct wich he clms i not exten the aggavate lony" enition to each convictions peating the D.
 See
Responent's Bief at 49. Howeve, as note by the mmigation Jge, e Boa has aleay aesse the esponents agments in tis eg an has n at the etoacive application of the c ent aggavate lony povisions to aliens with peD  convictions is pope (J. at 35).
 See Maer of Leman
22 &N Dec 365 (B 199)
 see also Saqr v. Holder,
50 F3 414, 421 (6th Ci 2009) (ecognizing as a geneal matte that e cent aggavate lony" enition applies to convictions egaless of when they occe)
Hamama v. INS,
7 F.3 233 (6th Ci 1996) (holing at application of explcitly etoactive ems emovability povision to peenactment conviction i not violate Constittion)Fhe, we ae npesae ·by the
1
The esponent elies on the ecisions in
Ledezma-Galicia v Holde
636 F3 1059 (9th Ci. 2010), an
Zvkov v Holder
724 F3 94 (7th Ci. 2013), in sppot of his agment. Those
( .. cot'd)
Cite as: J-G-, AXXX XXX 110 (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)
 
110 respondet's contention that he is not subject to the amendments made by the Illegal Immiation Rerm and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRI") to the deition of aggravated lony" because he had contact with the rmer Immigration and Naturalization Serice (INS) in 1991 while he was in prison.
 See
Respondents Brief at 8-9. Relying on e Sixth Circuits decision in
 Saq  Holde supa,
e respondent arges that, inasmuch as he was questioned about his potential depoability by the INS while he was in prison in 1991, the postIIRIA denition does not apply to him because, he claims, questioning im constitutes some action" taken by the INS bere IIAs enactment.
 See id
at 421 (interpreting section 32(c) of IIRIA, which states at the legislations amendment of the aggravated lony denition shall apply to actions ten on or er e date of  enactment  , regdless of when the conviction occurred"). In
 Saq
 the Sixh Circuit held that the tem actions taken" under section 31(c) of IIIA derives om the point at which the removal action begins, r pposes of determining whether the pre-or postIIRIRA denition of aggavated lony applies d, in accordance with two other circuits, it ud that removal proceedings begin when an alien is served wth the Notice to Appear.
 See d
at 42. Therere, mere questioning by an INS agent prior to the actual sevice of the Notice to Apper (which did not occur in this case until June 17, 201) does not constitute the begiing point of a removal action against an alen
 See id
he respondent does not dispute that if crent law may properly be applied (as we hold that it may), his oense is a categorical aggravated lony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(), as und by the Immiation udge (IJ at 7-8). The respondent next arges that he is eligible r a waiver under rmer section 21(c) of the Act despite the ct that he was convicted aer a uy tial rather than as the result of a plea agreement (I. at 8).
 See
Respondents Brief at 9-10
I
 this regard, we note,
did the Immigation udge, that the United States Cor of Appeals r the Sixth Circuit, where this case rises, has specically concluded that a waiver under mer section 212(c) of the Act is not available to those whose convictions were obtained er trial by a ury (I at 8)
 See Kellemann  Holde
592 F3d 700, 705-07 (6th Cir 2010) In so holding, the Sixth Circuit and some other circuit cours, emphasiing the United States Supreme Cors cus on the contractual nature of plea agreements" in
INS   Cy
533 US. 289 (2001), have determined  that application of the amendments eected by the Antiterorism and Eective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and by IIIRA has no impemissible retroactive eect on individuals who were convicted of depoable oenses aer ial In tu, such deternations have been based on the  theory that individuals who were convicted aer tial cnot demonstate detrimental reliance on  the potential availability of section 12(c) relief
 See Kellemann  Holde supa; see also Feguson 

Att'y Gen
563 3d 1254, 71 (11th Cir. 2009). decisions declined to der to
Matte of Lettman supa
and instead held that the crent aggravated lony" removability provision does not apply to preAD
convictions However,  the present case arises in the Sixth Circuit, which has not addressed the validity of the Bords decision in
Matte  of Lettman
whch we consequently re bound to apply. We also note that decisions issued by two other cours of appeals
hae
dered to
Matte of Lettman See Lettman  Reno
207 .3d 1368 (11th Ci. 2000);
Lews 
US
INS
194 F.3d 539 (4t Cir. 1999) 2
Cite as: J-G-, AXXX XXX 110 (BIA Apr. 9, 2014)

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->