Crimmigration: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions

COPYRIGHT 2013 OHLENBERG, ADKINS, CHAUDHARY

1

THE PANEL
Satveer Chaudhary, Chaudhary Law Office, PLLC, 5010 Flour Exchange Building, 310
Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: #612-206-3721
www.chaudharylawoffice.com
Richard P. Ohlenberg, Ohlenberg Law Office, P.C., 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 700,
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: #952-525-2242
www.ohlenbergatlaw.com
Dan Adkins, The Adkins Group, 310 4th Avenue S., Suite 1200, Minneapolis, MN
55415, Phone: 612-355-2787
www.adkinsdefense.com


2

“Immigration law can be complex, and
it is a legal specialty of its own.”
--U.S. Supreme Court, Padilla v. Kentucky


3

THE MISSION AND GOAL
The Mission: Equip practitioners with enough basic
knowledge to identify potential immigration
consequences in criminal matters to avoid “ineffective
assistance of counsel.”
Practice Goal: To give the Client proper and
appropriate legal advice and counsel, and/or the
resources necessary to obtain needed information.


4

POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ON ATTORNEY…
--Life can’t go on for the defendant in the U.S.
--Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea?
--Evidentiary Hearing?
--Professional Responsibility complaint?
--Malpractice?
--More work for no fee
--Prosecutor forced to heap complements on original
attorney


5

IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF CRIMINAL
CONVICTIONS: PRE-PADILLA
1938—Powell: 14th Amendment (Right to Lawyer is
Due Process)
1968—Gideon: 14th Amendment (Right to a Free
Lawyer)
1984—Strickland: 6th Amendment (Right to an
Effective Lawyer)
Until 2010: No right to advice regarding potential
immigration consequences.


6

PADILLA CHANGED EVERYTHING
Padilla v. Kentucky was decided on
March 31, 2010.
Since Padilla, the
defense attorney (and some others too)
has an affirmative duty to properly
advise immigration consequences of a
plea bargain.


7

SOME WISE PEOPLE PREDICTED THIS…


8

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY 130 S. CT. 1473 (2010)
ISSUE: Was Jose Padilla’s 6th amendment right to effective
counsel violated when his attorney advised that
deportation would not occur if he plead guilty to a
drug charge?
or
Was the advice given regarding his risk of
deportation merely a “collateral consequence,”
thus not protected by the 6th amendment?


9

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY - CONTINUED
FACTS:
Mr. Padilla had resided in the United States for approximately
40 years, and had originally come to the U.S. from Honduras.
He served honorably in the United States Armed Forces during
the Vietnam War.
He never became a U.S. citizen.
He was a trucker and faced deportation after he pleaded guilty
to transporting a large amount of marijuana in his tractor trailer
while in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Attorney’s advice: Mr. Padilla “did not have to worry about
immigration status since he had been in the country so long.”


10

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY - CONTINUED
ANALYSIS:
--Supreme Court began by reviewing changes to deportation law over the
last 100 years, highlighting complexity of immigration law.
--Legal analysis followed Strickland for what is effective assistance of
counsel:
2 prongs:
§  1) Did the representation fall below an objective standard of
reasonableness and,
§  2) But for counsel’s unprofessional errors, would the result of the
proceedings have been different?


11

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY -- CONTINUED
HOLDING:
No distinction between direct and collateral consequences.
When deportation consequences are “truly clear,…the duty is to give correct legal
advice…is equally clear,” i.e., duty is to tell client that the plea will result in
deportation and other immigration consequences.
When law is less straightforward, then a criminal defense attorney need do no
more than advise the noncitizen client that the pending criminal charges may
“carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences.” See Padilla, page 12.
OUR RESULTING TIP: If any doubt, put client in touch with an immigration attorney.
Good idea to have 2-3 names available as a handout.
IDEAL PRACTICE: Have client get an “opinion letter” from an immigration attorney. If
money is limited, then get an advisory opinion.


12

PADILLA V. KENTUCKY – CONTINUED
RATIONALE:
“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant is
left to the mercies of incompetent counsel. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold
that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation.”
Padilla at p. 17.
Deportation is a heavy consequence over which someone may even prefer jail.
Effective assistance of immigration consequences may positively alter a plea
negotiation for both sides, leading to a more justice result.
OUR RESULTING TIPS:
1.  All immigration consequences are on the table, not just deportation.
2.  Raising immigration issue can “allow the prosecutor and defense attorney to construct
a more creative plea bargain, where all interests are satisfied.” -Padilla.


13

II. KEY TERMS: INADMISSIBLE V. DEPORTABLE
KEY QUESTION:

Has your client been lawfully admitted into the United States? Is
your client, or will your client be SEEKING lawful admission?

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will either charge your client as removable under
grounds of inadmissibility or deportability.
Persons who have been “admitted” to the U.S. will be removed under
grounds of deportability
Those not lawfully admitted (as yet) because they crossed the border
illegally or will be seeking a new status will be removed on grounds
of inadmissibility.
REASON:

Levels of offenses to keep someone out are somewhat less than for
those who already here legally.


14

STATUTORY BASIS FOR INADMISSIBILITY VS.
DEPORTABILITY
Inadmissibility applies to persons who have not been lawfully admitted
to the U.S., after inspection, and authorization by an immigration
officer.
§ INA §212(a) controls
Deportability applies to persons who have been lawfully admitted
§ INA §237 controls
OUR RESULTING TIP: Aliens don’t have to show they were questioned by
an authority or admitted in a particular status.
Legal Permanent Residents returning are not
“seeking admission.”


15

INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY
!!!! One of the first steps in analyzing the immigration consequences of any
criminal activity is to determine whether your client is subject to the
inadmissibility grounds, the deportability grounds, or both.
!!!! Was individual lawfully admitted into the United States? Admitted at the
border or a port of entry? Applying for adjustment of status? These are
subject to the grounds of inadmissibility. In addition, individuals who enter
the United States without being admitted are deemed to be applicants for
admission and are subject to the grounds of inadmissibility rather than the
grounds of deportability.
!!!! Once admitted, any non–U.S. citizen may be removed if he or she falls
under one of the deportability grounds


16

REVIEW OF INADMISSIBILITY
Inadmissibility is reviewed at 4 levels:
- 

1. US Consulate at visa interview
-  Denied or granted a visa
-  2. CBP inspection at port of entry to the U.S.
-  Excluded or admitted
-  Detained, expedited removal, deferred inspection, parole
-  3. Immigration Court if charged as inadmissible
-  Raise defenses to inadmissibility
-  4. USCIS application for adjustment of status or naturalization
-  Prove admissibility and rebut claim of inadmissibility


17

REVIEW OF DEPORTABILITY
Events that trigger deportability:
-

Criminal activity

-

Extensive travel/ Abandonment of LPR status and other airport issues

-

Green card renewal application

-

Investigation by DHS

Note: Burden is on the DHS to prove person is deportable; presumption that status is
lawful (burden is on noncitizen if charged with inadmissibility).


18

CRIMINAL GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY AND DEPORTABILITY
GROUNDS OF
INADMISSIBILITY –
TRIGGERS:

1.

Crimes involving Moral
Turpitude

GROUNDS OF
DEPORTABILIT Y- TRIGGERS:

1.  Crimes involving Moral
Turpitude

2.  Controlled Substances

2.  Aggravated Felonies (AF)

3.  Reason to believe engaged in
drug trafficking

3.  Controlled Substances

4.  Engaged in prostitution
5.  Determined to have physical/
mental disorder that poses
threat

4.  DV, Child Abuse, VPO
5.  Firearms offenses
6.  Document fraud, false claims
to citizenship, other crimes

6.  Determined to be a drug
abuser


19

50 SHADES OF ORANGE PAJAMAS
1) CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE (CIMT): NOT WELL DEFINED
-E.g. 9th Circuit Soliciting a Prostitute is a CIMT, other circuits not.
-E.g. “Endangering Public Safety” is a CIMT, but does it include Reckless Driving??
2)  GOOD MORAL CHARACTER
-E.g. “Habitual Drunkard,” so can some DWI’s affect naturalization??
3) EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE CONVICTION: LOOSE LIPS SINK CLIENTS
-Matter of Silva-Trevino (only recently decided)
- Evidence not on record cannot be considered, but evidence on the RECORD
counts in determining CIMT and other factors in removal/admission
proceedings.
4) DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS (DACA)-DWI renders ineligible

5) I-9 EMPLOYMENT DOCUMENT VIOLATIONS
OUR RESULTING TIP: Get details of even “minor” traffic offenses!


20

50 SHADES OF ORANGE PAJAMAS—CONTINUED
INADMISSIBILITY
Controlled substance—no conviction required
Trafficking in substances—not even admission
necessary. Spouses and children also
inadmissable!
Assault—Simple assault is CIMT in 5th Circuit!
Indecent exposure—Not CIMT in 9th Circuit!

DEPORTABILIT Y
Aggravated felony defined at INA 101(a)
(43)
Always get criminal record, language of
precise statute, and statute
establishing min and max
sentences
Scrupulously compare the criminal
statute with the specific aggravated
felony
Watch for “divisible statutes”
Research BIA case law and federal
decisions
“Categorical approach”-another CLE


21

KNOW THE CLIENT!
Know your client’s goals and what you need to try to achieve
Know your client’s immigration status:
§  Example of Canadian citizen with Green Card (2005 case) charged with misdemeanor domestic assault and Gross Misdemeanor DWI.
Client had been in the US for 30 years.
§  Client charged with:
§  1. Gross Misdemeanor – Interfere with a 911 call
§  2. Gross Misdemeanor – DWI (under the influence with 1 prior)
§  3. Gross Misdemeanor - .10 or more with 1 aggravating factor
§  4. Misdemeanor – Domestic Assault
§  Know clients goals: Client and his wife wanted to work things out, and definitely wanted Client to remain in the United States.
§  Prosecutor initially wanted a plea to the Domestic or the GM - 911 call, but was willing to allow plea to Gross Misdemeanor – DWI
(Count 3).
§  Trial: Initially, client wanted to go to trial on the Domestic and the 911 call. However, I explained the risk to him, and that we
needed to work out a plea bargain.
§  Plea Bargain: That Judge’s standard sentence for any Gross Misdemeanor was 365, stay some time, and have him serve some
time on Electronic Home Monitoring, or whatever was worked out. However, that would have caused this client some serious
problems with Immigration Status.
§  To avoid possible immigration problems, we ended up with a plea bargain where total stayed and executed time was 364.
§  364 days jail, stay 304, serve 60 days (split between workhouse/jail and Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM) time.
§  You may need to order your client’s criminal record. The only reliable record for immigration is an FBI check. http://
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/criminal-history-summary-checks
OUR RESULTING TIP: If you have not already done so, put a question in your Intake Questionnaire asking Client if he: is a U.S.
citizen, or a Green Card Holder, or Other Status (here without papers), etc. As the attorney, you have to know this!


22

GENERAL RULES
For Immigration purposes, judicial involvement in any way may have a potential
immigration consequence. State laws are irrelevant to what the DHS considers to
be important for immigration purposes. They have broad latitude!!
Pleas: A dismissal or continuance for dismissal after a period of time is a very good
resolution because no plea of guilty is entered. This includes:
§  Continuance for Dismissal
§  Dismissals
§  Guilty plea to a non-immigration consequence offense
OUR RESULTING TIP: Watch for factual admissions in the record that can still result in
a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude! (e.g. “I spoke boisterously to my wife in our house”)


23

GENERAL RULES: OTHER OUTCOMES
Stay of Adjudication: What is this? Client not found guilty by the judge, but he does enter a
plea of guilty, which is stayed for a term of months.
§  Not good for non-citizen because plea of guilty & factual basis is made.
Stay of Imposition: What is this? Sentence starts out as a Felony or Gross Misdemeanor
and drops to a Misdemeanor after probation is complete
§  Not good for the non-citizen because plea of guilty & factual basis is made
Stay of Execution: What is this? Client enters a plea and is sentenced, but the sentence is
not executed. A typical example might be on a Felony DWI, the Defendant is sentenced
to 36 months in prison, but that sentence is stayed and defendant is to serve one year
at the Hennepin County workhouse.
Dismiss and Vacate
§  Not good for the non-citizen because plea of guilty & factual basis is made
THESE ARE ALL CONVICTIONS FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES!!!


24

GENERAL RULES: OTHER OUTCOMES (CONT.)
Other types of Guilty Pleas:
§  Alford Plea – What is this?
§  Pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 499 U.S. 25, 91 S.CT 160 (1970), a guilty
plea is entered without a specific factual basis, where the defendant maintains
his or her innocence, but states he has reviewed the police reports and concedes
that there is a substantial likelihood that the evidence would support a jury
conviction to the charged offense. See also, State v. Goulette, 258 N.W.2d 758,
760-61 (Minn. 1977).
§  Generally not good for immigration purposes because person is pleading guilty
**Lothenbach, nolo contendre, etc etc.
THESE ARE ALL CONVICTIONS FOR IMMIGRATION PURPOSES!!!


25

GENERAL RULES: OTHER OUTCOMES
Felony sentence reduced to a gross misdemeanor under 609.13.

§  What is this? If all terms of the felony sentence are gross
misdemeanor terms, then the sentence becomes a gross
misdemeanor (or a misdemeanor) by operation of law. This means ALL
terms of the sentence, and is IMMEDIATE—at the time of
announcement.
§ For example: period of probation cannot exceed 2 years, fine cannot
exceed $3,000, and jail time (stayed and/or executed) cannot
exceed 1 year, but for immigration purposes we would need a total
of 364 days or less!!! Also, remember that the nature of the offense
is VERY important.
§  Can be a good result, but still have to make sure that the Gross Misdemeanor is not an
assault or other listed crime which may lead to deportation.


26

GENERAL RULES: MISDEMEANOR DOMESTIC
ASSAULT CHARGES
Domestic Assault: Misdemeanor, Gross Misdemeanor and Felony Domestic Assault
convictions DO lead to deportation.
If a client is charged with domestic assault under Minn. Stat. 609.2242,subd 1(1) or
subd. 1(2), try to get it reduced to a:
§  Misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct under Minn. Stat. 609.72,subd. 1(3) which is
defined as: “engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive language tending reasonably
to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in another person.”
OUR RESULTING TIPS:
—Be careful what is stated in the factual basis!! Should not mention any physical
assaults. Try “Did such and such to another adult…” Otherwise might as well throw
away immigration considerations.
---Instead of amending complaint, dismiss original charge, and tab charge a new
counts.


27

GENERAL RULES:
Felony convictions generally result in deportation!
Federal immigration definition for felony is any crime for which the stayed and
imposed time is 365 days or more, NOT a year and a day which typically
constitutes a felony in most state courts.
OUR RESULTING TIPS: ---Make sure total stayed and executed time is 364 days or
less.
--Usually judges will work with you on this.
--Be careful, because often the standard sentence on a GM DWI
is 365 days, stay 335, serve 30 days as follows. THIS WOULD
BE A PROBLEM IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH A NON-CITIZEN!!

Most circuits and the BIA have determined that a
misdemeanor offense can be an aggravated felony!


28

GENERAL RULE: FELONIES
1) Consult with an immigration attorney before you enter a plea!!!
2) Do not say, “you have been in the country for many years, so this plea is not going
to cause you any problems with your immigration status!!!!”
3) Seriously consider trying the case to a jury, rather than pleading guilty to a felony.
Obviously, the ultimate decision is up to your client, as only he or she can waive
their right to have a jury trial.
4) Again, if the plea is going to lead to deportation, and your client wants to remain in
the U.S., you have not helped him if s/he is pleading guilty to a felony (or most
other convictions, too).


29

MINNESOTA POST-PADILLA
Campos (2012)—Padilla is not retroactive in Minnesota
Lopez (2011)—No counsel, no written petition, no court advisory (Judge or
prosecutor) means plea was not given with knowledge
Rule 15 Advisory (actually pre-Padilla)- “Judge must ensure” (15.01) and
“Must be questioned by the court or counsel” (15.02)
OUR TIPS: Circle make client read and initial the immigration paragraph in the plea
petition
Ask Judge to include include immigration language of Rule 15 waiver.


30

EXPUNGEMENT
In Minnesota, where a Court is proceeding under its inherent authority because a
defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty, then the Court can only seal the
records possessed by the Judicial Branch.
§  In Minnesota, expunging records is currently a two-step process, and Courts can
only seal the Court records
§  A Pardon must also be sought from the Pardon Board to expunge the Executive
Branch records.
§  Practice tip: Expunging the criminal records usually does not help for immigration
purposes, because you have to disclose it anyway.
§  Actually, this can make the process worse for a non-citizen, because the court
records might no longer be accessible.


31

WAIVERS AND OTHER RELIEF
Major topic: INA 212(h)
Waivers for Criminal Inadmissibility
-Length of Time (many variable depending on offense)
-Extreme Hardship (on the person being removed)
Withholding of Removal
-Fear of returning to country (asylum)
Cancellation of Removal
-LPR for 5 years and resided continuously for 7 years (discretionary)
-Continual presence for 10 years, GMC, extreme hardship to family


32

RESOURCES
Immigration Law and the Criminal Client (AILA 2013)
Immigration Consequences of Criminal Activity (AILA Fourth Edition 2009)
MSBA Criminal Law Section
MSBA Immigration Law Section
WWW.CRIMMIGRATION.COM
www.uscis.gov
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/criminal-history-summary-checks


33

THANK YOU AND PLEASE CONTACT US
Satveer Chaudhary, Chaudhary Law Office, PLLC, 5010 Flour Exchange Building, 310
Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: #612-206-3721
www.chaudharylawoffice.com
Richard P. Ohlenberg, Ohlenberg Law Office, P.C., 5775 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 700,
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone: #952-525-2242
www.ohlenbergatlaw.com
Dan Adkins, The Adkins Group, 310 4th Avenue S., Suite 1200, Minneapolis, MN
55415, Phone: 612-355-2787
www.adkinsdefense.com


34

Crimmigration: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Crimmigration: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions

Similaire à Crimmigration: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Crimmigration: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions