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

deportation

attorneyhearingdeportation

Related Cases

Gonzalez-Sandoval v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Ricardo Gonzalez-Sandoval, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico, committed two bank robberies at the Home Savings and Loan in Santa Cruz, California, on July 21 and July 23, 1980. He planned these robberies as part of a scheme to acquire a significant amount of money, believing that a single robbery would not yield enough cash. After being served with an Order to Show Cause for deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4), the Immigration Judge concluded that the two robberies were separate crimes, despite the common intent and planning.

Gonzalez testified at his deportation hearing that at some time prior to July 21, 1980, he devised a scheme to acquire between ten and eleven thousand dollars by robbing a single bank three times. When his attorney asked him, at the hearing, why he planned three robberies, he responded, 'because the tellers only have about $ 1,000 and one time wouldn't be enough and neither would two times and that's why I robbed it.'

Issue

Did the two bank robberies committed by Gonzalez-Sandoval arise out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, thereby exempting him from deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)?

In this petition for review of a deportation order, we are asked to decide whether two bank robberies occurring within two days of each other, at the same bank, and which petitioner conceived and planned at the same time, constituted crimes 'arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct' for the purposes of exempting petitioner, Ricardo Gonzalez-Sandoval, from deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4).

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4), an alien is deportable if convicted of two crimes 'not arising out of a single scheme.' The court must determine whether the crimes were planned and executed as part of a single scheme.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)(1982), an alien lawfully admitted to this country is deportable if convicted of two crimes 'not arising out of a single scheme.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts of the case in light of the legal standard established in Wood v. Hoy, which states that if credible evidence shows that two crimes were planned at the same time and executed according to that plan, they may be considered as arising out of a single scheme. The court found that Gonzalez-Sandoval's robberies met this criterion, as they were conceived and executed as part of a single plan.

Under the law of this circuit, where credible, uncontradicted evidence, which is consistent with the circumstances of the crimes, shows that the two predicate crimes were planned at the same time and executed in accordance with that plan, we must hold that the government has failed in its burden to establish that the conviction did not arise out of 'a single scheme of criminal misconduct' within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4).

Conclusion

The court reversed the order of deportation, concluding that the government did not meet its burden to prove that the two robberies were separate crimes.

Because the ALJ and the Board applied a legally erroneous test to determine that the petitioner committed two crimes 'not arising out of the same scheme,' the order of deportation is REVERSED.

Who won?

Ricardo Gonzalez-Sandoval prevailed in the case because the court determined that his two bank robberies constituted a single scheme of criminal misconduct, thus exempting him from deportation.

We agree. For that reason, member Dunne and chairman Milhollan would have held that Gonzalez was not subject to deportation.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Nee Hao Wong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ruiz-Vidal v. Lynch

Jalilian; U.S. v.

Yih-Hsiung Wang, Matter of

Fragedela v. Thornburgh