Tooby's California Post-Conviction Relief for Immigrants
- §10.1 I. Introduction
- §10.2 II. Immigration Effects of State Rehabilitative Relief
- §10.3 A. General Rule: State Rehabilitative Relief Does Not Eliminate the Immigration Consequences of a Conviction
- §10.4 B. Exception: Federal First Offender Act and its Analogues
- §10.5 1. Eligibility
- §10.6 a. Prior Conviction
- §10.7 b. Foreign Prior Convictions
- §10.8 c. Prior No-Conviction Diversion
- §10.9 d. Probation Violations
- §10.10 e. Prior Drug Conviction
- §10.11 f. Non-Probation Sentences
- §10.12 g. Simultaneous Multiple Qualifying Convictions
- §10.13 h. Disqualification from Effectiveness of Relief
- §10.14 i. Expungements In Process But Not Yet Granted
- §10.15 2. Expungement Statutes Need Not Be Identical to the FFOA
- §10.16 a. Qualifying Offenses
- §10.17 b. Procedure
- §10.18 c. Legal Effect
- §10.19 d. Travel Warning
- §10.20 C. Prospects for this Rule in Other Circuits
- §10.21 D. Even Where State Rehabilitative Relief is Effective to Eliminate a Conviction, the Underlying Conduct Can be Considered as a Negative Discretionary Factor
- §10.22 III. Protecting the Client Before Relief is Available
- §10.23 A. Immigration Court
- §10.24 1. Obtaining a Continuance
- §10.25 2. Seeking Appellate Review
- §10.26 B. Criminal Court
- §10.27 1. Avoiding a Final Conviction
- §10.28 2. Expediting Rehabilitative Relief
- §10.29 IV. Judicial Recommendations Against Deportation
- §10.30 A. Immigration Effects
- §10.31 1. Deportation Grounds Excused
- §10.32 2. Varieties of Immigration Effects
- §10.33 3. Foreign JRADs Ineffective
- §10.34 4. Continuing Validity of Pre-1990 JRADs
- §10.35 B. Procedure
- §10.36 1. Notice to Immigration Authorities
- §10.37 2. Timing of Effective JRAD
- §10.38 C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Failing to Seek JRAD
- §10.39 1. Ground to Vacate Sentence
- §10.40 2. Remedy to Allow Timely JRAD
- §10.41 D. Retroactivity of Repeal of JRAD Authority
- §10.42 1. Effective Date of Repeal
- §10.43 2. Ex Post Facto Argument
- §10.44 E. Government May Not Attack Validity of JRAD in Immigration Court
- §10.45 V. Executive Pardon
- §10.46 A. Immigration Effects of a Pardon
- §10.47 1. Qualifying Deportation Grounds
- §10.48 2. Immigration Benefits
- §10.49 3. Nature of Effective Pardon
- §10.50 4. Foreign Pardons Ineffective
- §10.51 B. Experience in California
- §10.52 VI. Expungement Where Probation Was Imposed (Penal Code 1203.4)
- §10.53 A. Mandatory Expungement Upon Early Termination
- §10.54 B. Mandatory Expungement for Successful Completion
- §10.55 C. Discretionary Expungement in Other Cases
- §10.56 VII. Procedure
- §10.57 A. Dealing with the Probation Department
- §10.58 B. Dealing with the Court
- §10.59 VIII. Misdemeanors and Infractions
- §10.60 A. NonProbation Sentences in Misdemeanors
- §10.61 B. Dealing with Infractions
- §10.62 IX. Developing a Strategy to Expunge A Qualifying Conviction
- §10.63 X. Problem Circumstances
- §10.64 A. Motions to Shorten Probation in Order to Become Eligible for Expungement
- §10.65 B. Expungements After Client Has Picked Up New Charges
- §10.66 C. Where Criminal Records Have Been Purged
- §10.67 1. Expungement Should Be Possible Despite the Absence of the Court File
- §10.68 2. Absent the Court File, the Prosecution Cannot Demonstrate that the Plea Was Constitutional
- §10.69 3. Absent the Court File, the Prosecution Cannot Demonstrate that the Plea Was Obtained in Compliance with Penal Code 1016.5's Mandatory Requirements
- §10.70 XI. Other Forms of Rehabilitative Relief
- §10.71 A. Expungements Under Proposition 36 and Penal Code 1210.1(d)
- §10.72 B. Relief for Youthful Offenders: P.C. 1203.45 and Welf. & Inst. Code §1772 and 1179
- §10.73 C. Marijuana Arrest Record Destruction Under Health & Safety Code §11361.5(b)
- §10.74 1. Immigration Effect
- §10.75 2. Requirements
- §10.76 D. Executive Pardons
§ 10.40 (A)
For more text, click "Next Page>"
(A)
Statutory bar. "A court may not award equitable relief in contravention of the expressed intent of Congress. See INS v. Pangilinan, 486 U.S. 875, 883-85, 100 L. Ed. 2d 882, 108 S. Ct. 2210 (1988)."[133] The court identified cases where the BIA had granted nunc pro tunc relief in the past, and noted that Congress never amended INA § 212(c) to bar such grants.[134]
[133] Edwards v. INS, 393 F.3d 299, 309-310 (2d Cir. Dec. 17, 2004).
[134] Id.
