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

motionhabeas corpusfelonydeportationnaturalizationmotion to dismiss
motionhabeas corpusfelonydeportationnaturalizationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Omni Packaging v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Belay-Gebru v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Lopez-Collazo; U.S. v.
View Case »
Xia v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Valenzuela-Perez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mathews v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Lloyd Mathews, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of marijuana possession and distribution in 1987, and later convicted of raping a child. After being found deportable, his drug-related conviction was vacated, but he was still subject to deportation based on his sex-related offenses. His application for relief was denied as he had served more than five years for an aggravated felony.

Lloyd Mathews, a native of Trinidad and Tobago, was admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of marijuana possession and distribution in 1987, and later convicted of raping a child. After being found deportable, his drug-related conviction was vacated, but he was still subject to deportation based on his sex-related offenses. His application for relief was denied as he had served more than five years for an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether Mathews was entitled to habeas corpus relief from the deportation order based on the argument that it was originally based on a vacated drug conviction.

Whether Mathews was entitled to habeas corpus relief from the deportation order based on the argument that it was originally based on a vacated drug conviction.

Rule

Under INA section 212(c), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and has served five or more years in prison is ineligible for relief from deportation.

Under INA section 212(c), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and has served five or more years in prison is ineligible for relief from deportation.

Analysis

The court found that although Mathews's deportation was initially based on a drug conviction, the order was later based on his sex-related offenses, for which he had served over 11 years. The court emphasized that under INA section 212(c), Mathews was ineligible for relief due to his lengthy imprisonment for aggravated felonies, thus rendering his arguments regarding the vacated conviction irrelevant.

The court found that although Mathews's deportation was initially based on a drug conviction, the order was later based on his sex-related offenses, for which he had served over 11 years. The court emphasized that under INA section 212(c), Mathews was ineligible for relief due to his lengthy imprisonment for aggravated felonies, thus rendering his arguments regarding the vacated conviction irrelevant.

Conclusion

The court allowed the INS's motion to dismiss, affirming that Mathews was not entitled to habeas corpus relief from the deportation order.

The court allowed the INS's motion to dismiss, affirming that Mathews was not entitled to habeas corpus relief from the deportation order.

Who won?

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case because the court found that Mathews was ineligible for relief based on his aggravated felony convictions.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case because the court found that Mathews was ineligible for relief based on his aggravated felony convictions.

You must be