Safe Havens

(A)  Immigration Effect.  The effect of a JRAD was to preclude the INS and immigration courts from deporting or excluding the defendant on the basis of the conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude[122] or aggravated felony[123] in the case in which the JRAD was granted.  The JRAD was effective only as to the specific conviction(s) for which it was granted, and was not effective beyond its terms even as to other convictions suffered in the same criminal case.[124]  It was completely ineffective as to controlled substances convictions.[125]  It did not eliminate deportability on account of a firearms conviction.[126]  A JRAD was ineffective to bar deportation if any ground of deportation, other than one for which a JRAD was effective, was alleged against the noncitizen.[127]  A JRAD issued by a foreign tribunal would not preclude deportation or exclusion.[128]

[122] United States v. Yacoubian, 24 F.3d 1 (9th Cir. 1994); see Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804 (5th Cir. 2002) (JRADs issued before repeal of JRAD statute are still effective).

[123] Probert v. United States, 737 F.Supp. 1010 (E.D. Mich. 1989) (JRAD available to offender whose aggravated felony controlled substances conviction was on appeal, since only 30 days was allowed within which to seek a JRAD, and by not limiting JRADs only to crimes of moral turpitude, Congress intended court to have an opportunity to determine which aggravated felonies should be the basis for deportation).

[124] Matter of Parodi, 17 I. & N. Dec. 608 (BIA 1980).

[125] Former 8 U.S.C. § 1251(b).

[126] United States v. Quintana, 914 F.2d 1409 (10th Cir. 1990) (statute that provides for a binding recommendation by a judge against deportation did not apply to a noncitizen who pleaded guilty to possession of a sawed-off shotgun, which was not a crime involving moral turpitude).

[127] See Jew Ten v. INS, 307 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1962); United States v. George, 534 F.Supp. 570 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (criminal court lacked jurisdiction to grant JRAD, since INS had lodged deportation charge of overstaying a visa, rather than for conviction of crime of moral turpitude); Matter of Corral-Fragoso, 11 I. & N. Dec. 478 (BIA 1966).

[128] Mercer v. Lence, 96 F.2d 122 (10th Cir.), cert. den., 305 U.S. 611 (1938); Matter of F, 8 I. & N. Dec. 469 (BIA 1959) (conviction of crime involving moral turpitude by foreign court martial is competent to sustain deportability under section 241(a)(1) of 1952 act based upon inadmissibility at the time of entry), distinguishing Gubbels v. Hoy, 261 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1958) (deportation statute refers only to sentences imposed by civil criminal courts, and a fortiori sentences imposed by military tribunals are not within their contemplation); Matter of B, 7 I. & N. Dec. 166 (BIA 1956).