Section 1229b - Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status

15 Citing briefs

  1. The People, Respondent,v.Richard Diaz, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed September 11, 2013

    Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude And Controlled Substance Offenses In addition to aggravated felonies, there is a long list of other offenses that make deportation nearly as automatic for the large number of noncitizens pleading guilty to them who have been lawful permanent residents ("LPRs") for less than five years, and have had a lawful continuous residence in the United - 27 - States for less than seven years at the time of the offense. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), (b). These offenses include: • any crime involving moral turpitude ("CIMT") for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i); 14, 15 • any two CIMTs that do not arise out of a single scheme of misconduct, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii); and • any controlled substance offense, i.e., "violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one's own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana," 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).

  2. The People, Respondent,v.Andre Harrison, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed March 29, 2016

    ............................... 7 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 7 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) .....................................................................................21 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) ....................................................................................21 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(iii) .........................................................................................11 vi 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1) ...............................................................................................12 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1),(2) ......................................................................................... 8 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 8 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) ......................................................................................... 8 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d) ................................................................................................... 8 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B) .........................................................................................11 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) ...................................................................................................14 N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. § 220.

  3. State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al

    REPLY in Support of 5 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed January 7, 2015

    And even then, Congress has capped the number of cancellations of removal at 4,000 per year nationwide. See id. § 1229b(e)(1). It takes a rather skewed eye to see this scheme as an unbounded thrust toward “family unity.”

  4. State of Texas et al v. United States of America et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition to 5 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed December 24, 2014

    ’ Mot. at 14, but neglect to acknowledge that the INA is replete with examples to the contrary. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (placing no limits on number of immigrant visas available for parents of U.S. citizens older than 21); § 1229b(b)(1) (giving discretion to Attorney General to cancel removal for certain nonpermanent resident aliens who, inter alia, show that their removal would pose significant difficulty to certain immediate family members who are U.S. citizens or LPRs).35 The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that the Executive’s enforcement of immigration laws can and should take into account humanitarian and other interests: 35 Even the article that Plaintiffs rely upon to argue that limitations have been placed on family reunifications acknowledges that “Congress continues to demonstrate its support of family unification in immigration legislation.”

  5. The People, Appellant,v.Roman Baret, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed May 1, 2014

    While she was incarcerated, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a detainer and charged defendant with a violation of Section 237 (a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, based on her 2002 conviction, among other convictions. 1 On May 25,2012, Immigration Judge Alan Page denied defendant's application for cancellation of removal under Immigration and Nationality Act § 240A(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). (Board of Immigration Appeals [hereinafter BIA] Decision at 4).

  6. GARCIA (SERGIO C.) ON ADMISSION

    Amicus Curiae Brief of Cesar Vargas

    Filed July 27, 2012

    See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Accordingly, even the INA recognizesthat an individual unlawfully present in the country can still possess good moral character, and allows the Attorney General to conduct a fact-specific inquiry before making a determination.See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(C)(special rule applying to battered spouses and children). citizens.

  7. The People, Respondent,v.Marcos Llibre, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed November 16, 2015

    Since defendant pled guilty to simple possession, a crime which did not include the element of intent to sell, he was eligible under federal law to apply for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).10 Beyond that, the fact that defendant received a sentence that did not include incarceration – when faced with a lengthy prison term – left no doubt that defendant received a substantial benefit in exchange for his guilty plea. Indeed, 9 Under federal law, an alien “shall” be deported following conviction of a controlled substances offense or an aggravated felony, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A).

  8. The People, Appellant,v.Roman Baret, Respondent.

    Brief

    Filed May 1, 2014

    The judge imposed a six month sentence along with five years of probation, leaving the client deportable but eligible to seek discretionary relief from deportation in the form of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). 42 • Avoidance of deportation ground — Richmond County, 2009: A Lawful Permanent Resident was apprehended after attempting to steal a bottle of perfume from Sephora, a store at the Staten Island Ma11.

  9. United States of America v. Alabama, State of et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed August 1, 2011

    In addition, DHS and DOJ may withhold or cancel the removal of an alien under a variety of special circumstances, including those relating to family unity and domestic abuse. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(E)(iii); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b (providing DOJ discretion to cancel the removal of an otherwise inadmissible or removable alien under certain circumstances); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(ii) (excluding from inadmissibility certain aliens who have been subjected to battery or extreme cruelty). Further, both DHS and DOJ may grant an otherwise unlawfully present or removable alien relief from removal — and potentially adjust that alien’s immigration status — if the alien meets certain conditions.

  10. United States of America v. Arizona, State of, et al

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed July 7, 2010

    33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 immigration consequences of state crimes. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a), 1253(a)(3). For that reason alone, not every alien who has committed a “public offense” that might make him removable will actually be removed from the United States.