Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

Related Cases

Garcia-Villeda v. Mukasey
View Case »
Jaraba v. Blinken
View Case »
Igiebor v. Barr
View Case »
Qingyun Li v. Holder
View Case »
Hunter v. Bryant
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Baraket v. Holder

Facts

On May 11, 1996, petitioner Mourad Ben Hassen Baraket, a native of Tunisia and citizen of Germany, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. On October 25, 2003, after a trip overseas, Baraket arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport and applied for admission to the United States as a returning lawful permanent resident. Immigration authorities denied Baraket admission, and in May 2004 they served him with a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, namely, that in November 2003 he had been convicted of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.

On May 11, 1996, petitioner Mourad Ben Hassen Baraket, a native of Tunisia and citizen of Germany, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident. On October 25, 2003, after a trip overseas, Baraket arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport and applied for admission to the United States as a returning lawful permanent resident. Immigration authorities denied Baraket admission, and in May 2004 they served him with a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, namely, that in November 2003 he had been convicted of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.

Issue

At issue in this case is whether 1229b(d)(1), known as the 'stop-time rule,' is triggered when an alien commits the predicate offense, or on some other date, such as the date on which he is convicted of the offense or admits to having committed the offense.

At issue in this case is whether 1229b(d)(1), known as the 'stop-time rule,' is triggered when an alien commits the predicate offense, or on some other date, such as the date on which he is convicted of the offense or admits to having committed the offense.

Rule

For purposes of an application for cancellation of removal, Congress has provided that 'any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed' any of certain crimes. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1).

For purposes of an application for cancellation of removal, Congress has provided that 'any period of continuous residence or continuous physical presence in the United States shall be deemed to end . . . when the alien has committed' any of certain crimes. 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1).

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the stop-time rule is triggered 'when the alien has committed an offense,' and explained that it is the date of the commission of the offense `not the date of the subsequent conviction `that matters for purposes of computing an alien's period of continuous residence. The court noted that Baraket's crime was a crime involving moral turpitude and that he committed the acts that led to his conviction between October 2001 and December 2001, which stopped the clock of continuous residence short of the seven-year mark.

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the stop-time rule is triggered 'when the alien has committed an offense,' and explained that it is the date of the commission of the offense `not the date of the subsequent conviction `that matters for purposes of computing an alien's period of continuous residence.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review.

The court denied the petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Baraket's commission of a crime terminated his continuous residence, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Baraket's commission of a crime terminated his continuous residence, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

You must be