Here is the Nov. 9, 2023 CA1 decision at issue, 86 F.4th 443. Here is the Round Table's Amicus Brief. Nutshell: "We write to provide the Court with additional context regarding the importance...
Annor v. Garland "David Annor, a citizen of Ghana and a lawful permanent resident of the United States, used his business to funnel the proceeds of a “romance fraud scheme” to militiamen...
Matter of F-C-S- "Regarding the respondent’s two remaining proposed particular social groups, we will remand to the Immigration Judge for further development of the record. The Immigration...
MALDEF, Mar. 12, 2024 "Texas residents and a local nonprofit organization are challenging the state’s new anti-immigrant law, known as S.B. 4, in federal court as unconstitutional. MALDEF...
New closing date: April 12, 2024 USAJOBS Open & closing dates: 03/13/2024 to 04/212/2024 Salary: $156,924 - $204,000 per year 1 vacancy in the following location: Falls Church, VA
"When the proceedings against Guzman commenced, consideration for waiver of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1995) (INA § 212(c)) was available. However, the AEDPA was enacted a few months later and under its provisions § 1182(c) was amended to entirely eliminate the phrase “served for such felony . . . a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years.” AEDPA § 440(d). However, as we have previously held, the § 440(d) provision was not effective as to proceedings which had commenced prior to the date of its enactment. See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 611 (9th Cir. 1999). In other words, when Guzman pled guilty to first degree robbery, the protections previously offered by § 1182(c) remained in full force and effect. By the time Guzman pled guilty, IIRIRA had also been enacted and it eliminated relief under § 1182(c) (INA § 212(c)). IIRIRA § 304(b). However, that provision did not apply to aliens, like Guzman, whose proceedings had commenced before the enactment of IIRIRA. See Pascua v. Holder, 641 F.3d 316, 321 (9th Cir. 2011). In other words, at the time Guzman pled guilty, for him the § 1182(c) relief provision was “in full bloom, [and] the amending and repealing statutes did not retroactively take away that provision.” United States v. Leon-Paz, 340 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). In short, the IJ erred when she failed to tell Guzman of the possibility that § 1182(c) (INA § 212(c)) relief was available; that violated his due process rights. Moreover, “the district court erred when it held to the contrary.” Leon-Paz, 340 F.3d at 1007." - USA v. Guzman-Ibarez, July 6, 2015. [Hats off to the L.A. Federal Defenders!]