"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals Paul Wickham Schmidt and Dr. Alicia Triche, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
“King, a native and citizen of Jamaica, arrived in the United States in August 2016 pursuant to a visa, which later expired. He pleaded guilty in January 2020 to third-degree felony fleeing or eluding a police officer in violation of 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3733(a). The Government initiated removal proceedings and charged King as removable for having overstayed his visa and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) within five years of entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(A)(i). King later married a United States citizen and has applied to adjust to the status of lawful permanent resident. … The BIA … conclud[ed] that a Pennsylvania felony fleeing conviction is categorically a CIMT because it involves a culpable mental state of willfulness and applies to reprehensible conduct. … The plain language of the statute, coupled with the reasoning of Mahn and Ramirez-Contreras, persuades us that the Pennsylvania felony fleeing statute does not qualify as turpitudinous. While the failing to stop for a police officer while crossing a state line is conduct that may put another in danger, it does not necessarily do so. The agency therefore erred in its conclusion that King was convicted of a CIMT. For the foregoing reasons, we will grant the petition for review.”
[Hats off to William C. Menard! And personally, I think this case should be published, because it highlights errors made by the IJ, the BIA and OIL.]
William C. Menard, Esquire Member Norris McLaughlin PHOTO: Firm
It’s always helpful to have superstars 🌟 like William C. Menard of Norris McLaughlin on the side of the NDPA. Too bad they and other top flight lawyers “out here” who know and understand the plight of migrants and its inextricable ties to racial justice in America aren’t “running the show” at the DOJ like they should be! The American legal system would function much better if due process and best practices for migrants were a part of it (that is, “institutionalized”), rather than something that has to be achieved case-by-case at a great cost in resources and inconsistent justice!
I concur with my friend Dan that this case should be published as yet another public reminder and “citable” permanent record of the seemingly unending stream of errors, misguided arguments, and “worst practices” streaming out of Garland’s dysfunctional EOIR and OIL!
A Dem Administration inexplicably continues to subject migrants and their representatives to “4th class justice” from Garland’s broken EOIR. Ironically, at the same time, the Administration is begging advocates and NGOs to “empty their pockets and pound the streets” in behalf of their candidates. Talk about “being taken for granted!”
The panel granted Ramirez-Contreras’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision concluding that his conviction for fleeing from a police officer under California Vehicle Code § 2800.2 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude that rendered him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.
In holding that Ramirez-Contreras’s conviction is not a crime of moral turpitude, the panel accorded minimal deference to the BIA’s decision due to flaws in its reasoning.
Applying the categorical approach, the panel viewed the least of the acts criminalized under California Vehicle Code § 2800.2, and concluded that an individual can be convicted under subsection (b) for eluding police while committing three traffic violations that cannot be characterized as “vile or depraved.” Therefore, the panel held that California Vehicle Code § 2800.2 is not a crime of moral turpitude because the conduct criminalized does not necessarily create the risk of harm that characterizes a crime of moral turpitude.
The panel also held that the modified categorical approach does not apply because the elements of California Vehicle Code § 2800.2 are clearly indivisible.”
Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Andre M. Davis,** and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Schroeder
** The Honorable Andre M. Davis, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.
********************************************
HARD TIMES IN THE IVORY TOWER
by Paul Wickham Schmidt
The BIA has been having a rough time lately on its rulings concerning both “aggravated felonies” and “crimes involving moral turpitude.” The BIA appears to take an “expansive” or “inclusive” approach to criminal removal statutes, while most courts, including the Supremes, seem to prefer a narrower approach that assumes the “least possible crime” and ameliorates some of the harshness of the INA’s removal provisions.
In my view, the BIA’s jurisprudence on criminal removal took a “downward turn” after Judge Lory D. Rosenberg was forced off the BIA by then Attorney General John Ashcroft around 2002. Judge Rosenberg’s dissents often set forth a “categorical” and “modified categorical” analysis that eventually proved to be more in line with that used by higher Federal Courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Since the “Ashcroft purge,” the BIA has visibly struggled to get on the same wavelength with the reviewing courts on analyzing criminal removal provisions. At the same time, the BIA’s own precedents have been remarkable for their lack of meaningful dissent and absence of any type of visible judicial dialogue and deliberation. Maybe that’s what happens when you try to build a “captive court” from the “inside out” rather than competitively selecting the very best Appellate Immigration Judges from different backgrounds whose views span the entire “real world” of immigration jurisprudence.
Just another reason why it’s time to get the United States Immigration Courts (including the “Appellate Division” a/k/a/ the BIA) out of the Executive Branch and into an independent judicial structure. No other major court system in America is run the way DOJ/EOIR runs the Immigration Courts. And, that’s not good news for those seeking genuine due process within the immigration system.
