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

lawyermisdemeanorvisaliens
lawyermisdemeanorvisaliens

Related Cases

Guzman-Rivadeneira v. Lynch

Facts

After Guzman-Rivadeneira came to the United States from Ecuador, three events occurred that affect whether he may remain here. First, in 1993 he was convicted in California of possession of counterfeit prescription blanks. Second, after he had returned to Ecuador, he then returned to the United States in 1995. He applied for and received the status of lawful permanent resident because his mother is a U.S. citizen. On his application, he was asked whether he had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime. He falsely answered 'no.' Finally, in 2012, Guzman-Rivadeneira pled guilty in California to the misdemeanor of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. Guzman-Rivadeneira came to the attention of immigration authorities in 2014 when he returned to the United States from another trip abroad. The Department of Homeland Security charged that he was removable on four grounds: conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude for the 1993 counterfeit prescription blanks conviction, conviction of a controlled substance offense for the 2012 conviction, procurement of a visa by fraud, and lack of a valid entry document when he was reentering the United States.

After Guzman-Rivadeneira came to the United States from Ecuador, three events occurred that affect whether he may remain here. First, in 1993 he was convicted in California of possession of counterfeit prescription blanks. Second, after he had returned to Ecuador, he then returned to the United States in 1995. He applied for and received the status of lawful permanent resident because his mother is a U.S. citizen. On his application, he was asked whether he had ever been arrested or convicted of a crime. He falsely answered 'no.' Finally, in 2012, Guzman-Rivadeneira pled guilty in California to the misdemeanor of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud. Guzman-Rivadeneira came to the attention of immigration authorities in 2014 when he returned to the United States from another trip abroad. The Department of Homeland Security charged that he was removable on four grounds: conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude for the 1993 counterfeit prescription blanks conviction, conviction of a controlled substance offense for the 2012 conviction, procurement of a visa by fraud, and lack of a valid entry document when he was reentering the United States.

Issue

Whether Guzman-Rivadeneira's first lawyer's concession that his 1993 conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude was properly deemed subject to review.

Whether Guzman-Rivadeneira's first lawyer's concession that his 1993 conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude was properly deemed subject to review.

Rule

Aliens are bound by the representations of their lawyers, with a narrow exception for 'egregious circumstances' recognized in Matter of Velasquez.

Aliens are bound by the representations of their lawyers, with a narrow exception for 'egregious circumstances' recognized in Matter of Velasquez.

Analysis

The court found that Guzman-Rivadeneira's original lawyer conceded before the immigration judge that the 1993 conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude. The immigration judge was entitled to accept that concession and to focus her attention on Guzman-Rivadeneira's other arguments. The new lawyer did not ask the Board for relief from the first lawyer's concession and did not comply with the procedural requirements established by the Board for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Board did not reach the substance of Guzman-Rivadeneira's argument regarding moral turpitude but relied on the general rule that aliens are bound by their lawyers' representations.

The court found that Guzman-Rivadeneira's original lawyer conceded before the immigration judge that the 1993 conviction was for a crime involving moral turpitude. The immigration judge was entitled to accept that concession and to focus her attention on Guzman-Rivadeneira's other arguments. The new lawyer did not ask the Board for relief from the first lawyer's concession and did not comply with the procedural requirements established by the Board for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Board did not reach the substance of Guzman-Rivadeneira's argument regarding moral turpitude but relied on the general rule that aliens are bound by their lawyers' representations.

Conclusion

The court concluded that too many layers of procedural defaults prevented it from reaching the question of law regarding Guzman-Rivadeneira's conviction. Therefore, the petition for review was denied.

The court concluded that too many layers of procedural defaults prevented it from reaching the question of law regarding Guzman-Rivadeneira's conviction. Therefore, the petition for review was denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Guzman-Rivadeneira's procedural defaults barred the review of his claims.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Guzman-Rivadeneira's procedural defaults barred the review of his claims.

You must be