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

pleadeportationnaturalizationadmissibilityguilty pleaallocution
pleanaturalizationguilty pleaallocution

Related Cases

BIJAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP IMMIGRATION SERVICES
View Case »
Reyes; U.S. v.
View Case »
Amezcua-Vasquez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Suprun v. Gonzales
View Case »
Hartman v. Elwood
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Diaz v. Reno

Facts

Petitioner, a native of the Dominican Republic, entered the U.S. illegally in 1981 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. He was involved in a welfare fraud scheme from 1985 to 1992, for which he was arrested and pled guilty in 1993. The Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated deportation proceedings based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, and the immigration judge denied his application for a waiver of inadmissibility.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States illegally on or about January 1, 1981. Diaz became a lawful temporary resident of the United States on November 19, 1987 and a lawful permanent resident on March 27, 1990. On June 18, 1993, Diaz pleaded guilty to a single-count indictment charging that 'in or about and between March 1985 and May 1992, both dates being approximate and inclusive,' Diaz participated in a welfare fraud scheme in violation of federal law.

Issue

Whether the petitioner was deportable based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his entry into the United States.

Whether the petitioner was deportable based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of his entry into the United States.

Rule

An alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after entry into the U.S. and sentenced to confinement for one year or longer is deportable under 8 U.S.C. 1251.

Any alien who — (I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after the date of entry, and (II) either is sentenced to confinement or is confined therefor in a prison or correctional institution for one year or longer, is deportable.

Analysis

The court found that the petitioner, through his counsel, had conceded deportability during the proceedings. The court noted that a guilty plea constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in the indictment, including the timing of the offense. The evidence presented, including the indictment and the plea allocution, supported the conclusion that the petitioner committed the crime within the relevant five-year period.

The court found that the petitioner, through his counsel, had conceded deportability during the proceedings. The court noted that a guilty plea constitutes an admission of all facts alleged in the indictment, including the timing of the offense. The evidence presented, including the indictment and the plea allocution, supported the conclusion that the petitioner committed the crime within the relevant five-year period.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition, affirming the Board's decision that the petitioner was deportable due to his conviction.

The court dismissed the petition, affirming the Board's decision that the petitioner was deportable due to his conviction.

Who won?

The Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed because the court upheld the Board's ruling that the petitioner was deportable based on his conviction.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed because the court upheld the Board's ruling that the petitioner was deportable based on his conviction.

You must be