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

hearingmotiondeportationmotion to dismiss
hearingmotiondeportationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Shah v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Gutierrez-Zavala v. Garland
View Case »
Ak v. Garland
View Case »
Pelinkovic v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Fotoudis v. City & County of Honolulu
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez-Velasquez; U.S. v.

Facts

Lopez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the United States in the early 1980s and later applied for the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program, which granted him temporary resident status in 1987 and lawful permanent resident status in 1990. He was convicted of a controlled substance offense and subsequently ordered deported in 1994. During his deportation hearing, the IJ did not inform him of potential relief under 212(c) because he was not eligible at that time, as he had not met the seven-year domicile requirement.

Lopez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, illegally entered the United States in the early 1980s and later applied for the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) program, which granted him temporary resident status in 1987 and lawful permanent resident status in 1990. He was convicted of a controlled substance offense and subsequently ordered deported in 1994.

Issue

Did the Immigration Judge (IJ) have a duty to inform Lopez-Velasquez of the possibility of discretionary relief under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act during his deportation hearing?

Did the Immigration Judge (IJ) have a duty to inform Lopez-Velasquez of the possibility of discretionary relief under 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act during his deportation hearing?

Rule

An IJ's duty is limited to informing an alien of a reasonable possibility that the alien is eligible for relief at the time of the hearing. The IJ is not required to inform an alien of relief for which the alien is not eligible.

An IJ's duty is limited to informing an alien of a reasonable possibility that the alien is eligible for relief at the time of the hearing.

Analysis

The court found that at the time of Lopez-Velasquez's deportation hearing, he was four years short of the seven-year domicile requirement for eligibility under 212(c). The IJ had no duty to inform him of relief for which he was not eligible, and the court determined that there were no exceptional circumstances that would have triggered such a duty. The court emphasized that the IJ's obligation is to inform only of apparent eligibility based on the law at the time of the hearing.

The court found that at the time of Lopez-Velasquez's deportation hearing, he was four years short of the seven-year domicile requirement for eligibility under 212(c). The IJ had no duty to inform him of relief for which he was not eligible.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the indictment and remanded the case, concluding that Lopez-Velasquez had not established that his deportation order was invalid.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the indictment and remanded the case.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the Ninth Circuit found that the IJ had no duty to inform Lopez-Velasquez of potential relief under 212(c) since he was not eligible at the time of the hearing.

The United States prevailed in the case because the Ninth Circuit found that the IJ had no duty to inform Lopez-Velasquez of potential relief under 212(c) since he was not eligible at the time of the hearing.

You must be