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

admissibilitypiracy
admissibilitypiracy

Related Cases

Omari v. Holder
View Case »
Humphries v. Various Federal U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Employees
View Case »
McKesson Corp v. Islamic Republic of Iran
View Case »
Reynoso-Lopez v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Saleh v. Titan Corp.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kellermann v. Holder

Facts

Gottfried Kellermann, a 68-year-old native and citizen of Germany, has resided in the United States since 1972 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1975. He was convicted in 1992 of making false statements to a U.S. agency and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001. In 2003, he was charged with being inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien convicted of a CIMT, leading to a final order of removal in 2008, which was affirmed by the BIA.

Gottfried Kellermann, a 68-year-old native and citizen of Germany, has resided in the United States since 1972 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1975. He was convicted in 1992 of making false statements to a U.S. agency and conspiracy to defraud the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1001. In 2003, he was charged with being inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act as an alien convicted of a CIMT, leading to a final order of removal in 2008, which was affirmed by the BIA.

Issue

Whether Kellermann's convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and whether he was eligible for cancellation of removal or a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA 212(c).

Whether Kellermann's convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and whether he was eligible for cancellation of removal or a waiver of inadmissibility under former INA 212(c).

Rule

An alien is inadmissible if convicted of a CIMT, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime. The BIA's interpretation of ambiguous statutory terms in the INA is generally afforded Chevron deference.

An alien is inadmissible if he has been convicted of a CIMT, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime. See INA 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Analysis

The court determined that Kellermann's convictions for conspiracy to defraud and making false statements involved moral turpitude. The BIA found that the indictment clearly showed that Kellermann was convicted of crimes containing the element of fraud, which is inherently base and vile conduct. The court applied the categorical approach to assess whether the crimes were CIMTs and concluded that they were, thus affirming the BIA's decision.

The court determined that Kellermann's convictions for conspiracy to defraud and making false statements involved moral turpitude. The BIA found that the indictment clearly showed that Kellermann was convicted of crimes containing the element of fraud, which is inherently base and vile conduct. The court applied the categorical approach to assess whether the crimes were CIMTs and concluded that they were, thus affirming the BIA's decision.

Conclusion

The court denied Kellermann's petition for review, affirming the BIA's determination that he was removable due to his CIMT convictions and ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The court denied Kellermann's petition for review, affirming the BIA's determination that he was removable due to his CIMT convictions and ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deny Kellermann's petition for review, affirming that his convictions constituted CIMTs.

The government prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deny Kellermann's petition for review, affirming that his convictions constituted CIMTs.

You must be