DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER - WHETHER PROTECTIVE ORDER MUST BE LEGALLY VALID BEFORE A FINDING OF ITS VIOLATION CAN TRIGGER DEPORTATION
United States v. Young, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2006) (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)(A) makes it a federal offense to possess a firearm by one against whom a domestic violence restraining order has been issued "after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate" and there is no right to collaterally attack the constitutionality of the state court restraining order since those proceedings are immaterial except to the extent that the federal statute explicitly requires certain procedural protections).
RELIEF - WAIVER - HEIGHTENED HARDSHIP STANDARD FOR ASYLEES/REFUGEES CONVICTED OF DANGEROUS CRIMES IS NOT ULTRA VIRES TO THE STATUTE
Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2006) (Attorney General's heightened "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard, under Matter of Jean, 23 I. & N. Dec. 373, 383 (A.G. 2002), for aliens convicted of "violent or dangerous" criminal acts who seek to adjust status under INA 209(c), 8 U.S.C. 1159(c)); accord, Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2006); Jean v. Gonzales, 452 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 2006).
RELIEF - WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL - PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME
Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2006) (a conviction does not have to be an aggravated felony in order to be found a particularly serious crime for purposes of withholding of removal; Wisconsin conviction of substantial battery with intent to cause substantial bodily harm by using a dangerous weapon in violation of Wis.Stat. 940.19(3), 939.63, a particularly serious crime, even if not an aggravated felony).
JUDICIAL REVIEW -COURT OF APPEALS HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW BIA FINDING OF PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT EMPLOYED PROPER LEGAL STANDARD
Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. Nov. 6, 2006)(court of appeals has jurisdiction to review BIA finding of particularly serious crime to determine whether it employed proper legal standard, since questions of law are presented because petitioner challenges the BIA's interpretation of the term "particularly serious crime" in the asylum and withholding statutes).
AGGRAVATED FELONY - SENTENCE - UNLAWFUL SENTENCE - SENTENCE UNLAWFUL ON ITS FACE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR PURPOSES OF AGGRAVATED FELONY SENTENCE REQUIREMENT
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3302660 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (Arizona court order imposing a twelve-month sentence, for Arizona misdemeanor conviction of "theft by control of property with a value of $250 or more," in violation of A.R.S. 1301802(A)(1), (C), arguably would not constitute a one-year sentence imposed for removal purposes since the state at the time of sentence designated the conviction a misdemeanor, and under Arizona law the maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor was then six months, see A.R.S.
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - SENTENCE - POST-CONVICTION RULING THAT EARLIER SENTENCE HAD BEEN ILLEGAL
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3302660 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (Arizona court order imposing a twelve-month sentence, for Arizona misdemeanor conviction of "theft by control of property with a value of $250 or more," in violation of A.R.S. 1301802(A)(1), (C), arguably would not constitute a one-year sentence imposed for removal purposes since the state at the time of sentence designated the conviction a misdemeanor, and under Arizona law the maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor was then six months, see A.R.S.
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - REMAND - EFFECT OF VACATUR
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 3302660 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (Arizona court order issued in 2004, acknowledging that 1994 order imposing a twelve-month sentence, for Arizona misdemeanor conviction was illegal since the state at the time of sentence designated the conviction a misdemeanor, and under Arizona law the maximum term of imprisonment for a misdemeanor was then six months, see A.R.S.
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - STANDARD OF REVIEW - CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE - WHETHER CONVICTION CONSTITUTES CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE REVIEWED DE NOVO
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) ("Whether a state statutory crime necessarily involves moral turpitude is a question of law that we review de novo."), citing Carty v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2005).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - STANDARD OF REVIEW - AGGRAVATED FELONY - WHETHER CONVICTION CONSTITUTES AGGRAVATED FELONY REVIEWED DE NOVO
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) ("Whether a particular offense constitutes an aggravated felony for which an alien is removable is also subject to de novo review."), citing Rivas-Gomez v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 1072, 1074 (9th Cir. 2006).
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PETITION FOR REVIEW - STANDARD OF REVIEW - AGGRAVATED FELONY - WHETHER CONVICTION CONSTITUTES AGGRAVATED FELONY REVIEWED DE NOVO
Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 678, 682 (9th Cir.2005) (questions of whether offense is an aggravated felony is reviewed de novo, with deference generally afforded to the BIA's interpretation of the immigration laws "unless that interpretation is contrary to the plain and sensible meaning of the statute."), quoting Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004).
