Tag: Moncrieffe v. Holder

BAD LAW: BIA Evades Supremes Again To Aid DHS Enforcement — Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

https://go.usa.gov/xmutz

Matter of NAVARRO GUADARRAMA, 27 I&N Dec. 560 (BIA 2019)

BIA HEADNOTE:

Where an alien has been convicted of violating a State drug statute that includes a controlled substance that is not on the Federal controlled substances schedules, he or she must establish a realistic probability that the State would actually apply the language of the statute to prosecute conduct involving that substance in order to avoid the immigration consequences of such a conviction. Matter of Ferreira, 26 I&N Dec. 415 (BIA 2014), reaffirmed.

PANEL: Appellate Immigration Judges  MALPHRUS, MANN, and KELLY

OPINION BY: Judge Ana L. Mann

***************************************

Seems to me the BIA got this one all wrong.  The Florida statute was amended specifically to broaden the definition of “marihuana” to include things that aren’t marihuana. How can the BIA say that there is no chance of prosecution? Since stalks, etc. are now “marihuana” it wouldn’t even be a defense to point out that you just possessed stalks.

The BIA has twisted item the concept of “far fetched” to include things that the legislature clearly contemplated when amending the statute.

The Supreme’s decision in Moncrieffe was clearly intended to be ameliorative.  But the BIA has turned it into a “sword” for DHS. Moreover, since “stalks only” would no longer be a defense, why would any state case discuss it?

Generally the “Ferreira test” is impossible for any unrepresented respondent to meet. Indeed, I doubt that most detention center judges would have access to the necessary materials to research something so technical.

As my good friend and colleague in the Roundtable of Retired Judges, Judge Jeff Chase, added:

The Supreme Court and some of the circuits created case law that was designed to be clearer – i.e. it doesn’t matter what the respondent actually did, or what the actual sentence was, just look at the least culpable behavior covered by the statute.And the Supremes and some circuits obviously intended it to be ameliorative, given the harsh consequences of the immigration laws.

The BIA sees its mission as trying to render those higher court decisions meaningless.

How far we have come from an organization supposdly dedicated to using teamwork and best practices to “guarantee fairness and Due Process for all.”

PWS

06-16-19

Related posts:

  1. COURTS OF INJUSTICE: How Systemic Bias, Bad Precedents, Gross Mismanagement, & Poor Decision-Making Threaten Lives In Immigration Court — What Should Be “Slam Dunk” Grants Of Protection Are Literally “Litigated To Death” Adding To Backlogs While Mocking Justice! — Featuring Quotes From “Roundtable” Leader Hon. Jeffrey Chase!
  2. 🤡WELCOME TO CLOWN COURT: Where The Lives Of Millions Of Humans & The Future Of America Are Treated Like A Cruel Joke, As Complicit Article III Courts Watch This Grotesque Unconstitutional Spectacle & Parody Of Justice Unfold On Their Watch!
  3. Suzanne Monyak @ Law360: FEDERAL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT BILLY BARR’S BIA IS A FRAUD! — So Why Do They Let The Unconstitutional Abuse Of Persons Seeking Justice Continue Under Their Noses?  
  4. 🏴‍☠️☠️🤮👎🏻ERROR SUPPLY: EOIR’s Anti-Asylum Bias, Failure To Apply Precedents, Earns Yet Another Rebuke From 3d Cir.  — Blanco v. AG

7TH FINDS BIA MISAPPLIED SUPREME’S MONCRIEFFE DECISION — IL MARIHUANA CONVICTION NOT DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME — MING WEI CHEN V. SESSIONS

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D07-20/C:17-1130:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1997576:S:

“The Board erred by reading Moncrieffe as if that decision interpreted the CSA’s term “small amount.” Nothing in Moncrieffe supports the conclusion that the possession of a tad more than 30 grams of marijuana—the lowest amount punishable under 720 ILCS § 550/5(d)—can never be punished as a federal misdemeanor. The Board erred as a matter of law in this respect, when it found that Chen’s conviction under that provision qualifies as an aggravated felony.

We GRANT the petition for review and remand to give the Board the opportunity to decide whether to exercise its discretion to grant cancellation of removal.”

PANEL:

WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.

OPINION BY: Chief Judge Wood

*******************************************

Will the BIA, the DOJ, and the DHS ever get the Supreme’s message on trying to expand the reach of the aggravated felony provisions to crimes that really aren’t aggravated, and sometimes aren’t even felonies?

PWS

07-21-17

 

Related posts:

  1. SUPREMES AGREE TO TAKE ANOTHER DETENTION CASE — This One Involves The “When Released” Issue For Mandatory Detention – Nielsen v. Preap, 9th Cir.
  2. SUPREME BOMBSHELL: JUSTICE GORSUCH PROVIDES CRITICAL FIFTH VOTE FOR OVERTURNING DEPORTATION STATUTE FOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS! — Administration Suffers Yet Another Legal Setback, This Time At the High Court! – Sessions v. Dimaya — Get The Full Opinion, Court Syllabus, Key Quotes, & My “Instant Analysis” HERE!
  3. BAD NEWS FOR  BIGOTLAND: Even As Billy The Bigot Blatantly Bashes The “Categorical Approach,” 10th Cir. Blasts Billy’s Biased BIA’s Bogus Blowing Of Same To Illegally Deport Under CO Controlled Substances Law! 
  4. 🏴‍☠️☠️🤮⚰️👎CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, “PERPS” ON THE LOOSE! — DOJ Internal Report Shows How “Gonzo Apocalypto” Sessions, Rosenstein, Hamilton Conspired To Separate Migrant Kids In Violation Of 5th Amendment — When Will These Criminals Be Charged & Prosecuted Under 18 USC 242? — NY Times Reports!