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

attorneyhearingleasedeportationliens
attorneyhearingleasedeportationliens

Related Cases

Felzcerek v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Faulkner Radio, Inc. v. FCC
View Case »
Service v. Dulles
View Case »
Ortiz-Cornejo v. Gonzales
View Case »
Ruiz-Terrazas; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Morales-Villagomez v. Smith

Facts

Mr. Morales is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States since 1987. In 1989, Mr. Morales pled guilty to possession of seven grams of heroin. After payment of a monetary penalty, he was discharged from supervision on November 9, 1989. Pursuant to legislation, Mr. Morales became a legal permanent resident in 1991. On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") became effective, requiring the Attorney General to take into custody and expeditiously deport any alien convicted of predicate controlled substance offenses "upon release from incarceration." Mr. Morales was taken into custody in May 1996, and the INS sought to deport him based on his 1989 conviction.

Mr. Morales is a citizen of Mexico who has lived in the United States since 1987. In 1989, Mr. Morales pled guilty to possession of seven grams of heroin. After payment of a monetary penalty, he was discharged from supervision on November 9, 1989. Pursuant to legislation, Mr. Morales became a legal permanent resident in 1991. On April 24, 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") became effective, requiring the Attorney General to take into custody and expeditiously deport any alien convicted of predicate controlled substance offenses "upon release from incarceration." Mr. Morales was taken into custody in May 1996, and the INS sought to deport him based on his 1989 conviction.

Issue

Whether the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply retroactively to Mr. Morales, who was released from custody on his conviction prior to the enactment of the AEDPA.

Whether the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) apply retroactively to Mr. Morales, who was released from custody on his conviction prior to the enactment of the AEDPA.

Rule

The court must assess whether the petitioner has shown: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm without the TRO; (3) a balance of hardships in his favor; and (4) advancement of public interest. Alternatively, a TRO may be issued if the petitioner shows either: (1) a combination of likely success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips greatly in his favor.

The court must assess whether the petitioner has shown: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm without the TRO; (3) a balance of hardships in his favor; and (4) advancement of public interest. Alternatively, a TRO may be issued if the petitioner shows either: (1) a combination of likely success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips greatly in his favor.

Analysis

The court concluded that Mr. Morales has met the requirements for the requested TRO. The record established that the conviction used by the INS to justify deportation and the application of AEDPA 440 took place almost seven years prior to the enactment of AEDPA. The court found that nothing in 440 or the remaining portions of AEDPA supports the INS' contention that Congress intended to apply AEDPA to aliens convicted and released prior to its enactment. The court also noted that acceptance of the INS' interpretation of AEDPA would raise serious constitutional issues.

The court concluded that Mr. Morales has met the requirements for the requested TRO. The record established that the conviction used by the INS to justify deportation and the application of AEDPA 440 took place almost seven years prior to the enactment of AEDPA. The court found that nothing in 440 or the remaining portions of AEDPA supports the INS' contention that Congress intended to apply AEDPA to aliens convicted and released prior to its enactment. The court also noted that acceptance of the INS' interpretation of AEDPA would raise serious constitutional issues.

Conclusion

The court granted Mr. Morales' request for a TRO, requiring the INS to release him from custody on personal recognizance pending his deportation hearing.

The court granted Mr. Morales' request for a TRO, requiring the INS to release him from custody on personal recognizance pending his deportation hearing.

Who won?

Mr. Morales prevailed in the case because he demonstrated that his application raised serious questions and that the balance of hardships tipped greatly in his favor.

Mr. Morales prevailed in the case because he demonstrated that his application raised serious questions and that the balance of hardships tipped greatly in his favor.

You must be