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

appealasylumdeportationnaturalizationrespondent
appealasylumdeportationnaturalizationrespondent

Related Cases

Padula v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Shah v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Alimi v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Trench v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Kazemzadeh v. AG
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gjonaj v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioner permanent resident was convicted in state court of assault with a firearm with intent to murder, and as a result the Immigration and Naturalization Service sought to deport him. An Immigration Judge issued a deportation order and respondent Board of Immigration Appeals (board) affirmed. On appeal from respondent's decision, petitioner admitted that conviction of the offense involving a firearm rendered him deportable, but argued that respondent erred in finding him ineligible for relief from deportation.

Petitioner permanent resident was convicted in state court of assault with a firearm with intent to murder, and as a result the Immigration and Naturalization Service sought to deport him. An Immigration Judge issued a deportation order and respondent Board of Immigration Appeals (board) affirmed. On appeal from respondent's decision, petitioner admitted that conviction of the offense involving a firearm rendered him deportable, but argued that respondent erred in finding him ineligible for relief from deportation.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in determining that the petitioner was ineligible for relief from deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(c), for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. 1253(h), and for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. 1158.

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in determining that the petitioner was ineligible for relief from deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. 1182(c), for withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C.S. 1253(h), and for asylum under 8 U.S.C.S. 1158.

Rule

The court held that an alien convicted of a particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of deportation and asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1253(h) and 8 U.S.C. 1158.

The court held that an alien convicted of a particularly serious crime is ineligible for withholding of deportation and asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1253(h) and 8 U.S.C. 1158.

Analysis

The court found that assault with a firearm with intent to murder is intrinsically a 'particularly serious crime' under 8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(2)(B). The court noted that there was no evidence Gjonaj could present that would render his crime not particularly serious, and therefore, he was not eligible for withholding of deportation or asylum.

The court found that assault with a firearm with intent to murder is intrinsically a 'particularly serious crime' under 8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(2)(B). The court noted that there was no evidence Gjonaj could present that would render his crime not particularly serious, and therefore, he was not eligible for withholding of deportation or asylum.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ordered deportation of petitioner permanent resident. The court held that petitioner's conviction of a particularly serious crime rendered him deportable and ineligible for discretionary waiver of deportation, withholding of deportation, or asylum.

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which ordered deportation of petitioner permanent resident. The court held that petitioner's conviction of a particularly serious crime rendered him deportable and ineligible for discretionary waiver of deportation, withholding of deportation, or asylum.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case because the court upheld their determination that Gjonaj's conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for relief.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case because the court upheld their determination that Gjonaj's conviction constituted a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for relief.

You must be