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

statutehabeas corpusfelonyprobationprobation violation
statutehabeas corpusfelonyprobationprobation violation

Related Cases

Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Lewis v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Saint Ford v. Attorney Gen. of U.S.
View Case »
Quaid v. Kerry
View Case »
St. Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gomez v. Ashcroft

Facts

Petitioner Juan Carlos Gomez, a 35-year-old native citizen of Columbia, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for the past twenty-two years. Gomez first entered the United States as an immigrant on or about May 10, 1980, at the age of thirteen. On September 10, 1996, Gomez pled guilty to and was convicted of third degree robbery in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a-136 based on conduct that occurred in November 1994. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, execution suspended, and three years' probation to run concurrently with a prior sentence of probation for a narcotics possession violation. On October 25, 1999, as a result of a probation violation, Gomez's probation on the drug charge was revoked and his sentence on the robbery conviction was modified so that he was ordered to serve three years of his five-year prison sentence.

Petitioner Juan Carlos Gomez, a 35-year-old native citizen of Columbia, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States for the past twenty-two years. Gomez first entered the United States as an immigrant on or about May 10, 1980, at the age of thirteen. On September 10, 1996, Gomez pled guilty to and was convicted of third degree robbery in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 53a-136 based on conduct that occurred in November 1994. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, execution suspended, and three years' probation to run concurrently with a prior sentence of probation for a narcotics possession violation. On October 25, 1999, as a result of a probation violation, Gomez's probation on the drug charge was revoked and his sentence on the robbery conviction was modified so that he was ordered to serve three years of his five-year prison sentence.

Issue

Whether Gomez's conviction for third-degree robbery constitutes an aggravated felony under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and whether the retroactive application of this definition is permissible.

Whether Gomez's conviction for third-degree robbery constitutes an aggravated felony under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and whether the retroactive application of this definition is permissible.

Rule

A conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) includes a 'crime of violence' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16, which is an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

A conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) includes a 'crime of violence' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16, which is an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.

Analysis

The court applied the definition of 'crime of violence' to Gomez's conviction for third-degree robbery, concluding that it involved the use or threat of physical force, thus qualifying as an aggravated felony. The court also determined that the retroactive application of the IIRIRA's expanded definition of aggravated felony was valid, as Congress explicitly stated that the new provisions applied regardless of when the conviction occurred.

The court applied the definition of 'crime of violence' to Gomez's conviction for third-degree robbery, concluding that it involved the use or threat of physical force, thus qualifying as an aggravated felony. The court also determined that the retroactive application of the IIRIRA's expanded definition of aggravated felony was valid, as Congress explicitly stated that the new provisions applied regardless of when the conviction occurred.

Conclusion

The court denied Gomez's petition for the writ of habeas corpus, affirming that his conviction for third-degree robbery qualified as an aggravated felony and that he was subject to removal.

The court denied Gomez's petition for the writ of habeas corpus, affirming that his conviction for third-degree robbery qualified as an aggravated felony and that he was subject to removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the immigration judge's determination that Gomez's conviction constituted an aggravated felony, thus allowing for his removal.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the immigration judge's determination that Gomez's conviction constituted an aggravated felony, thus allowing for his removal.

You must be