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

attorneystatutepleamisdemeanorlegal aid
attorneystatutepleamisdemeanorlegal aid

Related Cases

Fernandez-Taveras; U.S. v.
View Case »
Flores v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Shunaula v. Holder
View Case »
Herbert v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lanferman v. Board of Immigration Appeals

Facts

Lanferman arrived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1990. On August 8, 1996, he was convicted in Bronx Criminal Court for the offense of menacing in the second degree in violation of Section 120.14 of New York Penal Law, a misdemeanor. The underlying complaint includes a brief narrative describing the events that led to the conviction: in the course of a dispute with his wife, Lanferman allegedly threatened her with a loaded revolver. Lanferman was originally charged with several firearm-related felonies in addition to the menacing count, but the firearm charges were later dropped when Lanferman, with the assistance of a Legal Aid attorney, pleaded guilty to the menacing charge.

Lanferman arrived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1990. On August 8, 1996, he was convicted in Bronx Criminal Court for the offense of menacing in the second degree in violation of Section 120.14 of New York Penal Law, a misdemeanor. The underlying complaint includes a brief narrative describing the events that led to the conviction: in the course of a dispute with his wife, Lanferman allegedly threatened her with a loaded revolver. Lanferman was originally charged with several firearm-related felonies in addition to the menacing count, but the firearm charges were later dropped when Lanferman, with the assistance of a Legal Aid attorney, pleaded guilty to the menacing charge.

Issue

Whether the government established by clear and convincing evidence that Lanferman's menacing conviction was a firearm offense under 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whether the government established by clear and convincing evidence that Lanferman's menacing conviction was a firearm offense under 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Rule

The modified categorical approach allows the court to look at the record of conviction to determine if a statute is divisible, such that some categories of proscribed conduct render an alien removable and some do not.

The modified categorical approach allows the court to look at the record of conviction to determine if a statute is divisible, such that some categories of proscribed conduct render an alien removable and some do not.

Analysis

The court applied the modified categorical approach to determine whether Section 120.14 of New York Penal Law was divisible. It noted that Lanferman did not specify the subsection to which he was pleading guilty, and that Section 120.14 encompasses both acts that do and do not constitute a removable offense. The court concluded that the prudent course was to give the Board an opportunity to consider in the first instance whether Section 120.14 was divisible.

The court applied the modified categorical approach to determine whether Section 120.14 of New York Penal Law was divisible. It noted that Lanferman did not specify the subsection to which he was pleading guilty, and that Section 120.14 encompasses both acts that do and do not constitute a removable offense. The court concluded that the prudent course was to give the Board an opportunity to consider in the first instance whether Section 120.14 was divisible.

Conclusion

The court granted the alien's petition for review, vacated the Board's order, and remanded the case to the Board to consider in the first instance whether N.Y. Penal Law 120.14 was divisible.

The court granted the alien's petition for review, vacated the Board's order, and remanded the case to the Board to consider in the first instance whether N.Y. Penal Law 120.14 was divisible.

Who won?

The petitioner, Roderick Lanferman, prevailed because the court found that the Board's determination was inadequate for proper review and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The petitioner, Roderick Lanferman, prevailed because the court found that the Board's determination was inadequate for proper review and remanded the case for further proceedings.

You must be