LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom
Eighth Circuit slaps BIA on 212(c), St. Cyr, retroactivity, statutory counterpart analysis: Lovan II

"By conceding that In re L and In re G-A- were not overruled prior to the repeal of § 212(c), and then ignoring the rule established by those decisions, the BIA majority completely disregarded the Supreme Court’s controlling decision in St. Cyr. Determination of impermissible retroactive...

Seventh Circuit on 212(c), reliance, retroactivity: Khodja v. Holder

"We find that Khodja has demonstrated actual reliance in forgoing a possible benefit such that the repeal of § 212(c) does not apply retroactively in this case. Accordingly, we will remand to the agency for further proceedings to address Khodja’s § 212(c) waiver application."...

Seventh Circuit on IIRAIRA Retroactivity: Siddiqui vi Holder

"Mohsin H. Siddiqui, a native of Pakistan, appeals the denial of his legalization applications by the Administrative Appeals Office (“AAO”), the appellate body of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). Siddiqui disputes the AAO’s finding that he failed...

Supreme Court, 6-3, on Retroactivity: Vartelas v. Holder

"This case presents a question of retroactivity not addressed by Congress: As to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime before the effective date of IIRIRA, which regime governs, the one in force at the time of the conviction, or IIRIRA? If the former, Vartelas’ brief trip abroad...

SCOTUS to Consider Padilla Retroactivity: Chaidez v. U.S.

"The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to settle a dispute among lower courts on whether to give more immigrants the benefit of a ruling that requires their lawyers to advise them more clearly on what can happen if they plead guilty to a crime. At issue in the new case of Chaidez v. United States...

CA9 on Brand X, Retroactivity, 245(i) and Voluntary Departure: Garifas-Rodriguez v. Holder

"In National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services, the Supreme Court instructed federal courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, even when those interpretations conflict with the prior holding of a federal circuit court. 545 U...

Major Retroactivity Victory in CA5: Carranza II

"Prior to the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Petra Carranza-De Salinas (Carranza) was eligible to apply for discretionary relief from removal despite having a criminal conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. After the...

CA9 on Retroactivity, 212(c) - Cardenas-Delgado v. Holder

"Francisco Cardenas-Delgado, a legal permanent resident of the United States since 1976, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision that he is ineligible for relief from removal under former...

CA7 on Retroactivity, Aggravated Felony: Zivkovic v. Holder

"Milija Zivkovic, a Serbian who has been in the United States since 1966, has petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ordering him removed from the United States. The Board found that Zivkovic was removable because he had committed three aggravated felonies and that...

N.Y. Ct. App. on Padilla Retroactivity: People v. Baret

"The United States Supreme Court held in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356 [2010]) that the Sixth Amendment requires criminal defense counsel to advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. The Court subsequently held in Chaidez v United States (568 US __...

CA7 on 'Sought to Acquire,' Retroactivity: Velasquez-Garcia v. Holder

"Although we find the Board’s new interpretation of the Act’s ambiguous language to be reasonable, we conclude that retroactive application of the new one-year filing rule works a manifest injustice in Velásquez’s case. We therefore remand to the Board for redetermination...

CA4 on Retroactivity, Stop-Time Rule: Jaghoori v. Holder

"When Petitioner pled guilty to credit card theft in 1995, his conviction did not foreclose his opportunity to qualify for discretionary relief. Petitioner continued to accrue the seven years of unrelinquished domicile necessary for a section 212(c) waiver and the seven years of continuous physical...