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

hearingpleamotionfelonydeportationmotion to dismiss
hearingpleamotionfelonydeportationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Nwankwo v. Reno
View Case »
Sasso v. Milhollan
View Case »
Stevic; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.
View Case »
Menghistab v. Garland
View Case »
Evola v. Carbone
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Romero v. Reno

Facts

Petitioner, Rafael Antonio Romero, was ordered removed from the United States after a conviction for the criminal sale of a controlled substance on July 14, 1999. He contended that his criminal conduct occurred before the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which he argued should allow him to seek relief from deportation under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the court found that his arrest and conviction occurred after the repeal of that provision.

Petitioner, Rafael Antonio Romero, was ordered removed from the United States after a conviction for the criminal sale of a controlled substance on July 14, 1999. He contended that his criminal conduct occurred before the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which he argued should allow him to seek relief from deportation under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, the court found that his arrest and conviction occurred after the repeal of that provision.

Issue

Whether Romero is eligible for relief from deportation under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act despite his conviction occurring after its repeal.

Whether Romero is eligible for relief from deportation under former 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act despite his conviction occurring after its repeal.

Rule

The court applied the principle that the repeal of 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not allow for retroactive relief for convictions that occurred after its repeal.

The court applied the principle that the repeal of 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act does not allow for retroactive relief for convictions that occurred after its repeal.

Analysis

The court analyzed Romero's arguments against the backdrop of the Second Circuit's decision in Domond v. I.N.S., which held that the elimination of 212(c) hearings for those whose criminal conduct predates the effective date of the AEDPA but whose convictions post-date it is not impermissibly retroactive. Since Romero's plea and conviction occurred after the enactment of the AEDPA, he was not entitled to seek relief under 212(c).

The court analyzed Romero's arguments against the backdrop of the Second Circuit's decision in Domond v. I.N.S., which held that the elimination of 212(c) hearings for those whose criminal conduct predates the effective date of the AEDPA but whose convictions post-date it is not impermissibly retroactive. Since Romero's plea and conviction occurred after the enactment of the AEDPA, he was not entitled to seek relief under 212(c).

Conclusion

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Romero's petition and denied his petition for bond as moot.

The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Romero's petition and denied his petition for bond as moot.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Romero's conviction for an aggravated felony rendered him ineligible for the relief he sought.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Romero's conviction for an aggravated felony rendered him ineligible for the relief he sought.

You must be