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

statuteappealpleahabeas corpusfelonyparoledeportationnaturalizationliens
statuteappealpleahabeas corpusfelonyparoledeportationnaturalizationliens

Related Cases

Shaar v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Aleman-Fiero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Nguyen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Suite v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Simeonov v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Toledo-Hernandez v. Ashcroft

Facts

The petitioner, Gloria Toledo-Hernandez, was paroled into the United States in 1967 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1971. She was convicted in 1991 for criminal sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. Following her conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served her with an order to show cause for deportation based on her aggravated felony conviction. The immigration judge ordered her deported, and her appeal to the BIA was dismissed, leading her to file a habeas corpus petition.

The petitioner, Gloria Toledo-Hernandez, was paroled into the United States in 1967 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1971. She was convicted in 1991 for criminal sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. Following her conviction, the Immigration and Naturalization Service served her with an order to show cause for deportation based on her aggravated felony conviction. The immigration judge ordered her deported, and her appeal to the BIA was dismissed, leading her to file a habeas corpus petition.

Issue

Whether the BIA erred in applying Section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 retroactively to deny the petitioner relief under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Whether the BIA erred in applying Section 440(d) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 retroactively to deny the petitioner relief under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Rule

Section 440(d) of the AEDPA precludes aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from obtaining Section 212(c) relief, but it cannot be applied retroactively to those whose convictions occurred before the enactment of AEDPA.

Section 440(d) of the AEDPA precludes aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from obtaining Section 212(c) relief, but it cannot be applied retroactively to those whose convictions occurred before the enactment of AEDPA.

Analysis

The court found that the BIA incorrectly applied Section 440(d) to the petitioner, who was convicted prior to the enactment of AEDPA. Under the St. Cyr II standard, the court held that the petitioner should have been eligible for Section 212(c) relief at the time of her plea. The court noted that the retroactive application of the statute had a severe effect on the petitioner's rights.

The court found that the BIA incorrectly applied Section 440(d) to the petitioner, who was convicted prior to the enactment of AEDPA. Under the St. Cyr II standard, the court held that the petitioner should have been eligible for Section 212(c) relief at the time of her plea. The court noted that the retroactive application of the statute had a severe effect on the petitioner's rights.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Who won?

The petitioner, Gloria Toledo-Hernandez, prevailed because the court found that the BIA's application of the law was incorrect and that she was entitled to further consideration for relief under Section 212(c).

The petitioner, Gloria Toledo-Hernandez, prevailed because the court found that the BIA's application of the law was incorrect and that she was entitled to further consideration for relief under Section 212(c).

You must be