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

pleamotionsummary judgmenthabeas corpusfelonyprobationrespondentmotion for summary judgmentguilty plea
pleamotionsummary judgmenthabeas corpusfelonyprobationrespondentmotion for summary judgmentguilty plea

Related Cases

Awad v. Kerry
View Case »
Asencio-Perdomo; U.S. v.
View Case »
Mohamedou Ould Salahi v. Obama
View Case »
Mahon v. Johnson
View Case »
Przhebelskaya v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sango-Dema v. Dist. Dir., Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

The Petitioner Mr. Sango-Dema is a native and citizen of Zimbabwe who entered the United States as a visitor in December of 1991. On April 21, 1994, Sango-Dema pleaded guilty in Essex Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts to counts of rape of a child under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, 23 and indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years old under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, 13H. Sango-Dema was sentenced to two-and-a-half years incarceration for the rape of a child conviction; he received a three to five year suspended sentence and three years probation for the indecent assault conviction. After serving his sentence, Sango-Dema was issued an administrative notice to appear on November 24, 1998 that charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for conviction of an aggravated felony.

The Petitioner Mr. Sango-Dema is a native and citizen of Zimbabwe who entered the United States as a visitor in December of 1991. On April 21, 1994, Sango-Dema pleaded guilty in Essex Superior Court in Salem, Massachusetts to counts of rape of a child under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, 23 and indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years old under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 265, 13H. Sango-Dema was sentenced to two-and-a-half years incarceration for the rape of a child conviction; he received a three to five year suspended sentence and three years probation for the indecent assault conviction. After serving his sentence, Sango-Dema was issued an administrative notice to appear on November 24, 1998 that charged him with removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for conviction of an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether the removal order against Sango-Dema was improper based on his prior convictions for aggravated felonies and whether he was eligible for a waiver of removal.

Whether the removal order against Sango-Dema was improper based on his prior convictions for aggravated felonies and whether he was eligible for a waiver of removal.

Rule

Under INA 101, 'aggravated felony' is defined to include 'sexual abuse of a minor.' This definition was expanded by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to include additional crimes qualifying as aggravated felonies.

Under INA 101, 'aggravated felony' is defined to include 'sexual abuse of a minor.' This definition was expanded by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) to include additional crimes qualifying as aggravated felonies.

Analysis

The court held that Sango-Dema was properly convicted of aggravated felonies as his offenses fit within the statutory definition. The court found that he was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. Furthermore, the length of his detention did not warrant relief since it was caused by his refusal to cooperate in facilitating his removal. However, the court remanded the case to determine if Sango-Dema was eligible for a removal waiver based on his reliance on the possibility of such a waiver when entering his guilty pleas.

The court held that Sango-Dema was properly convicted of aggravated felonies as his offenses fit within the statutory definition. The court found that he was adequately advised of the immigration consequences of his guilty pleas. Furthermore, the length of his detention did not warrant relief since it was caused by his refusal to cooperate in facilitating his removal. However, the court remanded the case to determine if Sango-Dema was eligible for a removal waiver based on his reliance on the possibility of such a waiver when entering his guilty pleas.

Conclusion

The court denied the respondent's motion for summary judgment and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent necessary to determine Sango-Dema's eligibility for a removal waiver. However, the court upheld the removal order as Sango-Dema was properly convicted of aggravated felonies.

The court denied the respondent's motion for summary judgment and granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the extent necessary to determine Sango-Dema's eligibility for a removal waiver. However, the court upheld the removal order as Sango-Dema was properly convicted of aggravated felonies.

Who won?

The court granted Sango-Dema's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part, allowing for a determination of his eligibility for a removal waiver, while denying the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The court granted Sango-Dema's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in part, allowing for a determination of his eligibility for a removal waiver, while denying the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

You must be