(E)  Warning.  Caution is urged in generalizing from a judicial decision to the particular client’s case under consideration.  The result may differ for a number of reasons.  The elements of the offense, as defined by the statute, may differ between the two cases, even though they involve the same type of crime.  Each individual statute of conviction must be examined.[13]  Even if the statute is identical, it may have been amended between the two convictions, or judicial decisions of the jurisdiction of conviction may have altered the elements required for conviction of the offense in the interim.  The law governing the rules to be applied in determining whether a given conviction triggers certain immigration consequences may have changed between the dates of the two convictions.  The courts may have altered the rules for determining whether a conviction involves an aggravated felony.  The record of conviction in one case may be different from the record in another.  The judicial decision may be interpreting “aggravated felony” in a different context from that in which the particular client’s case arises.  Therefore, the cases should be used as the starting point, rather than as a substitute, for legal research and analysis.

[13] See Franklin v. INS, 72 F.3d 571, 572-573 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 834, 117 S.Ct. 105 (1996) (refusing to adopt bright-line rule regarding classification of crimes of moral turpitude; each specific statute must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis).

Other

AGGRAVATED FELONY"LEGISLATIVE ALERT"THIRD DRUG DRIVING PROPOSED AS AGGRAVATED FELONY
There is a bill now pending in Congress, S.1925, "To Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994", which primarily deals with that topic, but also seeks to create authority for Indian tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence, and then sneaks in the following: "Section 1008. REMOVAL OF DRUNK DRIVERS (a) In General: Section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) is amended by striking "for which the term of imprisonment" and inserting "including a third drunk driving conviction, regardless of the States in which the convictions occurred or whether the offenses are classified as misdemeanors or felonies under State or Federal law, for which the term of imprisonment is" and then another provision making that effective immediately on the date of the amendment. Thus anyone who got a third misdemeanor DWI, with one year imprisonment suspended, would have an aggravated felony, notwithstanding Leocal. This bill was reported out of the Senate Judiciary committee on February 7, 2012. Thanks to Tova Indritz.