Criminal Defense of Immigrants

A number of circuit courts have held that a conviction for transporting illegal aliens is an aggravated felony,[321] as a conviction “relating to” alien smuggling.[322]  This decision is in line with the BIA’s rejection of the argument that the parenthetical reference limited the class of aggravated felonies to actual alien smuggling,[323] and with recent decisions finding that the offense of harboring noncitizens likewise qualifies as an aggravated felony.[324]  Where this issue has not been decided, there is an argument to the contrary.  See § 16.37, infra.

[321] INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N).

[322] United States v. Martinez-Candejas, 347 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2003) (alien smuggling includes transportation and harboring for purposes of 16-level enhancement of illegal re-entry sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) (2002) based on prior aggravated felony conviction); United States v. Solis-Campozano, 312 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. Nov. 12, 2002) (federal conviction for transporting aliens within the United States, in violation of INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), was an “alien smuggling offense” within meaning of the Sentencing Guidelines for purpose of constituting an aggravated felony to enhance a sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(vii) for illegal re-entry); Gavilan-Cuate v. Yetter, 276 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. Jan. 9, 2002); United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001); Ruiz-Romero v. Reno, 205 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. Mar. 3, 2000).

[323] Matter of Ruiz-Romero, 22 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1999).

[324] Castro-Espinoza v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2001); Patel v. Ashcroft, 294 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. June 20, 2002) (conviction of harboring an alien in violation of INA § 274(a)(1)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), constituted an aggravated felony, because the parenthetical, “relating to alien smuggling” in INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N), is descriptive and not restrictive; the phrase is nothing more than a short-hand description of all of the offenses listed in INA § 274(a)(1)(A), U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A); Congress did not intend it to be a substantive restriction limiting which of the several offenses specified in INA § 274(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) applies to INA § 101(a)(43)(N), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N)); accord Gavilan-Cuate v. Yetter, 276 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2002); Castro-Espinosa v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Galindo-Gallegos, 244 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Salas-Mendoza, 237 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001); Ruiz-Romero v. Reno, 205 F.3d 837 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999).