Matter of Castillo-Perez: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213196/download
Key section:
For the reasons set forth below, I affirm the Board’s order. I conclude that, when assessing an alien’s good moral character under INA § 101(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f), evidence of two or more DUI convictions during the relevant period establishes a rebuttable presumption that the alien lacked good moral character during that time. Because the Attorney General may only cancel removal of an alien who has been a person of good moral character during a 10-year period, see INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), such evidence also presumptively establishes that the alien is not eligible for that relief. Here, because the evidence of the respondent’s efforts to rehabilitate himself is insufficient to overcome this presumption, the Board correctly vacated the immigration judge’s decision to grant cancellation of removal.
Matter of Michael Vernon Thomas & Matter of Joseph Lloyd Thompson: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1213201/download
Key section:
The INA assigns clear immigration consequences to an alien who has been convicted and sentenced for a state crime, yet the Board has adopted multiple tests that permit state courts to change those results well after the fact. Although a state court may alter a state conviction for appropriate reasons under state law, the state court does not have the authority to make immigration-law determinations. In view of these considerations, I conclude that the Pickering test should apply to state-court orders that modify, clarify, or otherwise alter the term of imprisonment or sentence associated with a state-court conviction. As a result, such alterations will have legal effect for immigration purposes if they are based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceeding, but not if they are based on reasons unrelated to the merits, such as rehabilitation or immigration hardship. Matter of Cota-Vargas, Matter of Song, and Matter of Estrada must therefore be overruled.
Alexei Woltornist
Public Affairs Officer
Department of Justice
Cell: (202)598-5281
Office: (202)514-2016
***********************************
Matter of Castillo-Perez effectively precludes most individuals with two (or more) DUIs from getting cancellation of removal. Obviously, the AG perceived this to be a significant problem. I don’t know how many cases like this are actually granted. Perhaps it would allow the BIA and the IJs to decline to reopen more cases if the Respondent could not show prima facie evidence that he or she could overcome the “presumption.”
Matter of Thomas & Thompson restricts a fairly common device used to avoid the harsh immigration consequences of a criminal conviction. Criminal court judges and even prosecutors are often willing to make slight “after the fact” sentence modifications to avoid deportation in sympathetic cases. Under this ruling, that will only work if there is a “non-immigration” reason for the modification — much more difficult to establish.
Taken together these cases are part of a continuing effort by the AGs under Trump to 1) limit the ability of Immigration Judges to grant discretionary relief based on hardship or equities, and 2) make it more difficult for individuals to avoid deportation. It might also allow Immigration Judges to deny more requests for relief summarily, without full hearings to consider all the equities.
To me, neither change seems “astounding” in and of itself. Rather, they are part of a continuum of efforts to restrict discretion and make it more difficult for individuals to avoid deportation based on equities in the U.S.
Notably, the Trump AGs have never intervened to rule in favor of an individual. All of their certification rulings favor DHS enforcement.
This is notable in a system where the prosecutor selects, directs, and can fire or reassign the judges. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of published precedents already favor DHS enforcement. Now, the prosecutor apparently intends to systematically overrule or limit those few precedents that have given individuals hope of a favorable resolution of their cases.
PWS
P10-26-19