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

jurisdictionfelonyprobationnaturalization
jurisdictionfelonyprobationnaturalization

Related Cases

Pierre v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Lok v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Suarez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Zazueta-Carrillo v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Rafeedie v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sousa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

The petitioner in this case, Artur Manuel Sousa, is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Portugal. He entered the United States with his parents as an immigrant in 1971. On June 29, 1990, Sousa was convicted of unarmed robbery in the Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts and given a suspended sentence of 3 to 5 years of imprisonment. In 1996, Sousa was found to be in violation of the terms of his probation and was ordered to serve the suspended prison term. On September 3, 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began removal proceedings against Sousa, charging him with being removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

The petitioner in this case, Artur Manuel Sousa, is a 31-year-old native and citizen of Portugal. He entered the United States with his parents as an immigrant in 1971. On June 29, 1990, Sousa was convicted of unarmed robbery in the Superior Court in Cambridge, Massachusetts and given a suspended sentence of 3 to 5 years of imprisonment. In 1996, Sousa was found to be in violation of the terms of his probation and was ordered to serve the suspended prison term. On September 3, 1998, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) began removal proceedings against Sousa, charging him with being removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether Sousa is removable as an aggravated felon under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and whether the court has jurisdiction to review the refusal to consider his request for relief from removal.

Whether Sousa is removable as an aggravated felon under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) and whether the court has jurisdiction to review the refusal to consider his request for relief from removal.

Rule

The court applied the definition of aggravated felony under the IIRIRA, which expanded the definition to include crimes of violence and made it applicable to convictions regardless of when they were entered.

The court applied the definition of aggravated felony under the IIRIRA, which expanded the definition to include crimes of violence and made it applicable to convictions regardless of when they were entered.

Analysis

The court determined that Sousa was removable as an aggravated felon under the IIRIRA's definition, which expressly rejected temporal limitations and applied to all actions taken after its enactment. The court found that Sousa's conviction for unarmed robbery met the criteria for aggravated felony status, and thus, the court's authority with respect to the removal proceeding was at an end.

The court determined that Sousa was removable as an aggravated felon under the IIRIRA's definition, which expressly rejected temporal limitations and applied to all actions taken after its enactment. The court found that Sousa's conviction for unarmed robbery met the criteria for aggravated felony status, and thus, the court's authority with respect to the removal proceeding was at an end.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review insofar as it challenged the order of removal on the ground that petitioner was not an aggravated felon and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction regarding the refusal to consider petitioner's request for relief from removal.

The court denied the petition for review insofar as it challenged the order of removal on the ground that petitioner was not an aggravated felon and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction regarding the refusal to consider petitioner's request for relief from removal.

Who won?

The INS prevailed in the case because the court upheld the determination that Sousa was an aggravated felon under the IIRIRA, which precluded his eligibility for discretionary relief from removal.

The INS prevailed in the case because the court upheld the determination that Sousa was an aggravated felon under the IIRIRA, which precluded his eligibility for discretionary relief from removal.

You must be