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

statutefelonydeportationrespondent
statutefelonydeportationrespondent

Related Cases

Diaz v. McElroy
View Case »
Mathews v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Nicolas v. Nicolas
View Case »
Neyor v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Lari v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lettman v.

Facts

Petitioner was an alien residing in the United States who was convicted of third degree murder in the death of his child in 1987. The INS ordered him deported based on this conviction, which was classified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner contested his deportation, arguing that his conviction predating the effective date of the statute defining it as a ground for deportation should exempt him from deportation. However, the BIA concluded that the Immigration Act of 1990 eliminated the date restriction, rendering him deportable.

Petitioner was an alien residing in the United States who was convicted of third degree murder in the death of his child in 1987. The INS ordered him deported based on this conviction, which was classified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The petitioner contested his deportation, arguing that his conviction predating the effective date of the statute defining it as a ground for deportation should exempt him from deportation. However, the BIA concluded that the Immigration Act of 1990 eliminated the date restriction, rendering him deportable.

Issue

Whether the Immigration Act of 1990 superseded the date restriction of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, thereby allowing for the deportation of an alien whose conviction occurred before the enactment of the statute defining the crime as grounds for deportation.

Whether the Immigration Act of 1990 superseded the date restriction of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, thereby allowing for the deportation of an alien whose conviction occurred before the enactment of the statute defining the crime as grounds for deportation.

Rule

The court held that under INA 241(a)(2)(A)(iii), any alien convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after entry is deportable, and that the BIA's interpretation of the statute is reasonable.

The court held that under INA 241(a)(2)(A)(iii), any alien convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after entry is deportable, and that the BIA's interpretation of the statute is reasonable.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory provisions and determined that the BIA's interpretation was reasonable, concluding that the IMMACT did not preserve the ADAA date restriction. The court emphasized that Congress intended to revise all existing grounds for exclusion and deportation, and thus the aggravated felony ground applied regardless of when the underlying crime was committed.

The court analyzed the statutory provisions and determined that the BIA's interpretation was reasonable, concluding that the IMMACT did not preserve the ADAA date restriction. The court emphasized that Congress intended to revise all existing grounds for exclusion and deportation, and thus the aggravated felony ground applied regardless of when the underlying crime was committed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the BIA's decision to deport the petitioner, holding that the date of the conviction was immaterial given the superseding nature of the Immigration Act of 1990.

The court affirmed the BIA's decision to deport the petitioner, holding that the date of the conviction was immaterial given the superseding nature of the Immigration Act of 1990.

Who won?

The respondents prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deport the petitioner, agreeing with the interpretation that the IMMACT eliminated the date restriction.

The respondents prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deport the petitioner, agreeing with the interpretation that the IMMACT eliminated the date restriction.

You must be