Arizona Standard Conditions of Probation Now Include Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that probationer’s cell phones are included in the definition “property” that is subject to warrantless searches and seizures, as long as the search is “reasonable under the totality of circumstances.”

Read: Arizona Standard Conditions of Probation Now Include Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split and Rejects 9th Circuit’s More Lenient Cancellation of Removal Standard

Immigration law is full of confusing jargon and seemingly contradictory statutes. One confusing concept is that of “inadmissibility.” On its face, inadmissibility would seem to mean that one who is ineligible to be “admitted” to the U.S. is “inadmissible,” but this term also applies to aliens within the U.S. who have committed one of a number of offenses. In other words, you do not have to be seeking admission or denied admission, once you have committed a qualifying offense, you are “inadmissible”.

Read: SCOTUS Resolves Circuit Split and Rejects 9th Circuit’s More Lenient Cancellation of Removal Standard

If I am not a U.S. Citizen and I am Charged with a Crime, Do I Also Need an Immigration Attorney?

If you are not a U.S. citizen and you are charged with a crime, you might eventually need an immigration attorney. But, your criminal defense attorney is legally obligated to advise you of the “clear consequences” of any plea deal.

Read: If I am not a U.S. Citizen and I am Charged with a Crime, Do I Also Need an Immigration Attorney?

Most Migrants don’t Elude Inspection: 9th Circuit

Since the beginning of Operation Streamline in 2005, thousands of migrants have been criminally convicted under 8 U.S.C. 1325 and 1326, for unlawfully entering the United States. Other than a few cases appealed on procedural grounds, the vast majority of these cases are dispensed of within a matter of minutes, hence the name “Streamline.” But, a defendant recently appealed his conviction all the way to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing that he did not “elude” inspection when he crossed without inspection in a remote area of the border.

Read: Most Migrants don’t Elude Inspection: 9th Circuit

Potential Immigration Consequences of a Reckless Driving Conviction

In many areas of immigration law, the immigration officials within the U.S. government used to have a great deal of discretion and were permitted to use their judgment to make enforcement decisions on a case-by-case basis. But in the current political climate, more of this discretion is being taken away from individual officials and these officials are often asked to instead enforce hard and fast policies. One of the most easily penalized demographics are non-immigrant visa holders with criminal convictions, because there is an almost completely discretionary element to the issuance of most non-immigrant visas. This means that even seemingly innocuous misdemeanor convictions, such as reckless driving, can greatly affect an individual’s eligibility for a non-immigrant visa.

Read: Potential Immigration Consequences of a Reckless Driving Conviction

Sentencing Enhancements at the Border

Federal sentencing guidelines use a system of “levels” to determine the range of jail time that offenders serve, based on the severity of the crime. A specific “base” level, from 1-43, is determined for each crime and that base level is the starting point for determining the minimum jail sentence an offender is likely to receive.

Read: Sentencing Enhancements at the Border

Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

In Hernandez-De La Cruz v Lynch, 819 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. April 26, 2016), the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part the denial of Hernandez-De La Cruz’s applications for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for withholding of removal if, “the applicant would face other serious harm in […]

Read: Former Informants Are Not Protected Group

BIA: Transportation of Narcotics is Not an Aggravated Felony

In a surprising unpublished decision the Board of Immigration Appeals, which handles administrative appeals from deportation orders, held that transportation of cocaine under California law is not an aggravated felony.

Read: BIA: Transportation of Narcotics is Not an Aggravated Felony

Attorney Failed to Explain Immigration Consequences | Ninth Circuit

In an important ruling, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel in United States v. Rodriguez-Vega, No. 13-56415 (8-14-15), held that where deportation of an immigrant is a “virtual certainty” as a consequence of a guilty plea, the defense attorney has an affirmative duty to properly advise. It is not enough to say it is a “possibility” under those circumstances.

Read: Attorney Failed to Explain Immigration Consequences | Ninth Circuit

Endangerment not just Dangerous, but Fatal, for Immigrants

In Leal v. Holder –F.3d–, No. 12-73381 (9th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014) the panel, according Chevron deference to the BIA (Matter of Leal), effectively held that a conviction under Arizona’s “Endangerment” statute, ARS § 13-1201, is a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (CIMT), and thus a substantive basis for deportation. There, Leal, an undocumented alien, convicted […]

Read: Endangerment not just Dangerous, but Fatal, for Immigrants