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

attorneyappealtrialplea
attorneyappealplea

Related Cases

Roe v. Flores-Ortega
View Case »
State v. Nunez-Valdez
View Case »
Rodriguez Morales v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
L-C-, Matter of
View Case »
Hensley v. Municipal Court
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lima v. Holder

Facts

Dione Pereira Lima, a native of Brazil, entered the U.S. in 2004 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2009. He was later convicted of breaking and entering in 2009 and again in 2010. Following these convictions, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act for having committed two crimes involving moral turpitude. Lima's initial attorney conceded his removability, which Lima later sought to contest after changing representation.

Dione Pereira Lima, a native of Brazil, entered the U.S. in 2004 and became a lawful permanent resident in 2009. He was later convicted of breaking and entering in 2009 and again in 2010.

Issue

Whether Lima's concessions of removability made by his attorneys were binding and whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding him removable based on those concessions.

Whether Lima's concessions of removability made by his attorneys were binding and whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding him removable based on those concessions.

Rule

A party's assertion of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission by which it is normally bound throughout the course of the proceeding. Admissions made by counsel during trial are binding on the client if they are clear and unambiguous.

A party's assertion of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission by which it is normally bound throughout the course of the proceeding.

Analysis

The court determined that Lima was bound by the concessions made by his attorneys, which included admissions of his removability based on his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude. The court noted that Lima did not demonstrate that his attorneys' conduct was egregious enough to warrant releasing him from these concessions. The BIA's reliance on these admissions was deemed appropriate, as they constituted sufficient evidence for finding Lima removable.

The court determined that Lima was bound by the concessions made by his attorneys, which included admissions of his removability based on his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court denied Lima's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that he was removable based on his prior convictions and the binding nature of his attorneys' concessions.

The court denied Lima's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that he was removable based on his prior convictions and the binding nature of his attorneys' concessions.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Lima was removable based on his prior convictions and his attorneys' concessions.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Lima was removable based on his prior convictions and his attorneys' concessions.

You must be