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

attorneyappealpleamotionvisacitizenshipdeportation
attorneyappealpleamotionvisacitizenshipdeportation

Related Cases

Singh v. Waters
View Case »
Gomez-Diaz v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Muro-Inclan; U.S. v.
View Case »
Stevic; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Etenyi v. Lynch
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rodriguez v. Gonzales

Facts

Rodriguez entered the United States on a visitor's visa on December 14, 1986. After he arrived, a friend introduced Rodriguez to an unidentified man who claimed to be an attorney able to help Rodriguez obtain citizenship. Rodriguez gave this man $1,500 and his Dominican passport. Within a month, the man provided Rodriguez with an American passport, a Social Security card, and a New York City birth certificate. In 2002, Rodriguez sent in a renewal application for his passport that included his expired passport and a birth certificate indicating that he was born in New York City. He was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 1542 and placed into removal proceedings in March 2003. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the charge on October 15, 2003.

Rodriguez entered the United States on a visitor's visa on December 14, 1986. After he arrived, a friend introduced Rodriguez to an unidentified man who claimed to be an attorney able to help Rodriguez obtain citizenship. Rodriguez gave this man $1,500 and his Dominican passport. Within a month, the man provided Rodriguez with an American passport, a Social Security card, and a New York City birth certificate. In 2002, Rodriguez sent in a renewal application for his passport that included his expired passport and a birth certificate indicating that he was born in New York City. He was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 1542 and placed into removal proceedings in March 2003. Rodriguez pleaded guilty to the charge on October 15, 2003.

Issue

The main issue on appeal is whether section 1542 is a CIMT under section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

The main issue on appeal is whether section 1542 is a CIMT under section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Rule

A nonpermanent resident in removal proceedings may be eligible for cancellation of removal if he or she has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), which includes crimes involving moral turpitude.

A nonpermanent resident in removal proceedings may be eligible for cancellation of removal if he or she has not been convicted of an offense under section 1182(a)(2), which includes crimes involving moral turpitude.

Analysis

The court held that the IJ did not err in determining that Rodriguez's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1542 was a CIMT because it involved an intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government, and it involved deceit or dishonesty by requiring proof that the alien provided information in a passport application that he knew to be false. The court found that Rodriguez's conviction rendered him ineligible for both cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.

The court held that the IJ did not err in determining that Rodriguez's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1542 was a CIMT because it involved an intent to impair the efficiency and lawful functioning of the government, and it involved deceit or dishonesty by requiring proof that the alien provided information in a passport application that he knew to be false. The court found that Rodriguez's conviction rendered him ineligible for both cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.

Conclusion

The petition for review was denied. The pending motion for a stay of deportation was denied.

The petition for review was denied. The pending motion for a stay of deportation was denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's determination that Rodriguez's conviction was a CIMT, which rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the IJ's determination that Rodriguez's conviction was a CIMT, which rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status.

You must be