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

defendantpleamotionsummary judgmentfelonydeportationnaturalizationmotion for summary judgmentguilty plea
defendantpleamotionsummary judgmentfelonydeportationnaturalizationmotion for summary judgmentguilty plea

Related Cases

Smith v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Lockhart v. Chertoff
View Case »
McFadden v. U.S.
View Case »
Okabe v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Foster v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tung v. Johnson

Facts

Ralord Allah Lao Tung, a citizen of Taiwan, was convicted of robbery in Virginia in 1995 when he was 18 years old. He and accomplices robbed a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint, resulting in a guilty plea to robbery and a sentence of five years imprisonment. After serving less than two years, he was placed in removal proceedings due to this conviction and a separate drug charge. He later received a waiver of deportation and adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. In 2014, he applied for naturalization, which was denied by USCIS based on his criminal history.

Ralord Allah Lao Tung, a citizen of Taiwan, was convicted of robbery in Virginia in 1995 when he was 18 years old. He and accomplices robbed a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint, resulting in a guilty plea to robbery and a sentence of five years imprisonment. After serving less than two years, he was placed in removal proceedings due to this conviction and a separate drug charge. He later received a waiver of deportation and adjusted his status to lawful permanent resident. In 2014, he applied for naturalization, which was denied by USCIS based on his criminal history.

Issue

Did the USCIS err in denying Tung's application for naturalization based on his robbery conviction being classified as an 'aggravated felony' under the INA?

Did the USCIS err in denying Tung's application for naturalization based on his robbery conviction being classified as an 'aggravated felony' under the INA?

Rule

Under the INA, a conviction for an 'aggravated felony' permanently bars an individual from establishing 'good moral character' necessary for naturalization. An 'aggravated felony' includes theft offenses and crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.

Under the INA, a conviction for an 'aggravated felony' permanently bars an individual from establishing 'good moral character' necessary for naturalization. An 'aggravated felony' includes theft offenses and crimes of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Tung's robbery conviction qualified as an 'aggravated felony' by determining it was both a theft offense and a crime of violence. The court noted that Virginia law defines robbery as taking property by violence or intimidation, which aligns with the INA's definitions. The USCIS's classification of the conviction as an aggravated felony was upheld, as it met the criteria set forth in the INA.

The court analyzed whether Tung's robbery conviction qualified as an 'aggravated felony' by determining it was both a theft offense and a crime of violence. The court noted that Virginia law defines robbery as taking property by violence or intimidation, which aligns with the INA's definitions. The USCIS's classification of the conviction as an aggravated felony was upheld, as it met the criteria set forth in the INA.

Conclusion

The court denied Tung's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, affirming the USCIS's decision to deny his naturalization application.

The court denied Tung's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, affirming the USCIS's decision to deny his naturalization application.

Who won?

Defendants (USCIS) prevailed because the court upheld their determination that Tung's robbery conviction constituted an aggravated felony, which barred him from establishing good moral character.

Defendants (USCIS) prevailed because the court upheld their determination that Tung's robbery conviction constituted an aggravated felony, which barred him from establishing good moral character.

You must be