In re Esposito

20 Cited authorities

Francis v. Immigration Naturalization Serv
532 F.2d 268 (2d Cir. 1976) Cited 249 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "fundamental fairness" dictates that § 212(c) apply to resident aliens in deportation as well as exclusion proceedings
Esposito v. I.N.S.
987 F.2d 108 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 109 times
Holding that to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise and that he was prejudiced by his counsel's conduct
Rodriguez v. I.N.S.
9 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 48 times
Holding that a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to a question deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter
Komarenko v. I.N.S.
35 F.3d 432 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 41 times
Precluding an alien convicted of violating California Penal Code § 245—the same statute pursuant to which [the petitioner] was convicted—from seeking a discretionary deportation waiver available to those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude
Leal-Rodriguez v. I.N.S.
990 F.2d 939 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 43 times
Holding that based on Francis's rationale a deportable alien may seek § 212(c) relief if the ground for deportation had a comparable ground of exclusion, but rejecting the petitioner's argument that all deportable aliens qualified for a § 212(c) waiver
Tapia-Acuna v. Immigration Natur. Serv
640 F.2d 223 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 62 times
Adopting the Francis rationale
Campos v. I.N.S.
961 F.2d 309 (1st Cir. 1992) Cited 36 times
Adopting Francis and Silva in the First Circuit
Bedoya-Valencia v. I.N.S.
6 F.3d 891 (2d Cir. 1993) Cited 27 times
Holding that, "[a]t least with respect to entry without inspection, a ground of deportation that could not conceivably have such an analogue, there is no basis in statutory text or legislative purpose to preclude [this] modest extension of the Francis rule."
Cabasug v. I.N.S.
837 F.2d 880 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 31 times
Holding § 212(c) relief unavailable unless the ground of deportation was "substantially identical in the exclusion and deportation statutes"
Kin Sang Chow v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
12 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 22 times
Holding that IMMAct "completely supersedes all former versions of legislation dealing with deportation for firearm offenses."
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,711 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1251 - Transferred
8 U.S.C. § 1251 Cited 2,154 times 1 Legal Analyses
Delineating crimes that make alien deportable
Section 1103 - Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General
8 U.S.C. § 1103 Cited 818 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting the Attorney General power to "establish such regulations" and "review . . . administrative determinations in immigration proceedings"
Section 3.0 - Executive Office for Immigration Review
8 C.F.R. § 3.0 Cited 24 times
Noting that “immigration judges” are “referred to in some regulations as special inquiry officers”
Section 40.22 - Multiple criminal convictions
22 C.F.R. § 40.22 Cited 2 times
Interpreting "purely political offense" to include "offenses that resulted in convictions obviously based on fabricated charges or predicated upon repressive measures against racial, religious, or political minorities"

In re Esposito

20 Cited authorities

Holding that "fundamental fairness" dictates that § 212(c) apply to resident aliens in deportation as well as exclusion proceedings

Holding that to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that competent counsel would have acted otherwise and that he was prejudiced by his counsel's conduct

Holding that a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to a question deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear the matter

Precluding an alien convicted of violating California Penal Code § 245—the same statute pursuant to which [the petitioner] was convicted—from seeking a discretionary deportation waiver available to those convicted of crimes of moral turpitude

Holding that based on Francis's rationale a deportable alien may seek § 212(c) relief if the ground for deportation had a comparable ground of exclusion, but rejecting the petitioner's argument that all deportable aliens qualified for a § 212(c) waiver

Adopting the Francis rationale

Adopting Francis and Silva in the First Circuit

Holding that, "[a]t least with respect to entry without inspection, a ground of deportation that could not conceivably have such an analogue, there is no basis in statutory text or legislative purpose to preclude [this] modest extension of the Francis rule."

Holding § 212(c) relief unavailable unless the ground of deportation was "substantially identical in the exclusion and deportation statutes"

Holding that IMMAct "completely supersedes all former versions of legislation dealing with deportation for firearm offenses."

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Delineating crimes that make alien deportable

Granting the Attorney General power to "establish such regulations" and "review . . . administrative determinations in immigration proceedings"

Noting that “immigration judges” are “referred to in some regulations as special inquiry officers”

Interpreting "purely political offense" to include "offenses that resulted in convictions obviously based on fabricated charges or predicated upon repressive measures against racial, religious, or political minorities"