§
In the Matter of Ozkok

3 Analyses of this admin-law by attorneys

  1. Guest Post: In Sharper Focus: Overview of Federal Immigration Law.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanJune 23, 2015

    ) (en banc)(“this Board, with direction from the Supreme Court and the Attorney General, struggled for more than 50 years to reconcile its definition with the increasing numbers of state statutes providing ameliorative procedures affecting the finality of a conviction under state law”). The 1996 version of INA 101(a)(48)(A) derives from the three prong test ofthe Board ofimmigration Appeals in Matter ofOzkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546, 551-52 (BIA 1988)(available at http://www.justice.gov /eoir/vll/intdec/voll9/3044.pdf).

  2. BIA Grants Administrative Closure Pending Direct Appeal of Criminal Conviction

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawApril 28, 2015

    Id. at 555 n.1.Before 1996, “finality” for immigration purposes required that appellate review of the underlying criminal conviction be exhausted or waived. Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546, 553 n.7 (BIA 1988) (superseded by statute) (“It is well established that a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has been exhausted or waived.”) However, when Congress later enacted the IIRIRA in 1996, it provided a definition of “conviction” for immigration purposes under INA § 101(a)(48)(A), which reads:a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where—(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and (ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.

  3. 9th Circuit: Suspended non-incarceratory sanction cannot form basis of conviction under INA

    University of Denver Sturm College of LawJanuary 11, 2010

    To reach this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit examined the legislative history of § 101(a)(48)(A)(ii). Retuta, No. 04-74855, slip op. at 511. This section, the Court explained, is borrowed verbatim from part of the BIA’s decision in Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988). Ozkok, the Ninth Circuit noted, “included several minor sanctions” as “exemplars” of the punishment, penalty, or restraint required to constitute a conviction—revocation or suspension of a driver’s license, deprivation of nonessential activities, or community service.