In Rad v. Att’y Gen. United States, the defendant appealed the Board of Immigration Appeals’ finding that his violations of the CAN-SPAM Act necessarily entailed deceit, and therefore satisfied the first element of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). The 3rd Circuit held that, because the Act targets false statements made in contexts … Read more
Khan v. Att’y Gen. was an appeal of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order, which denied Khan’s petition for cancellation of removal. The 3rd Circuit denied Khan’s petition to review the BIA’s order, holding that the post-conviction decriminalization of an offense does not prevent the “stop-time rule” from triggering at the time the offense was … Read more
In Martinez v. Att’y Gen., the 3rd Circuit employed the categorical approach in holding that the New Jersey state offense of criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. § 2C:14-3(b), constitutes sexual abuse of a minor, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). As a result, the New Jersey offense is an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
In Mirambeaux v. Att’y Gen., the Board of Immigration of Appeals ruled that the petitioner was convicted of an aggravated felony and thus ineligible for withholding of removal. The petitioner claimed a violation of his Due Process rights when the Immigration Judge denied a request for a continuance. The 3rd Circuit held that the claim … Read more
In Hernandez-Morales v. Att’y Gen., the 3rd Circuit held that Hernandez-Morales was “dressing up” discretionary rulings made by an immigration judge as well as the Board of Immigration Appeals as constitutional claims in order to merit review. However, the 3rd Circuit did not bite and held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the … Read more
In Abdulla v. U.S. Att’y Gen., the Third Circuit joined the 2nd, 8th, 9th, as well as 10th circuits and held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals decision not to self-certify an untimely appeal.
In State v. Aburoumi, which involved a collateral attack on a criminal conviction, the Appellate Division ruled that an evidentiary hearing was needed where the defendant claimed he was not informed of the immigration consequences of his plea-into-PTI plea bargain, though the law was clear that such a plea would lead to removal.