Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DUI conviction impact on H1-B or Green Card

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DUI conviction impact on H1-B or Green Card

    I was recently arrested for a DUI and am worried that it will affect my ability to extend my H1-B visa or have an impact on my green card processing. I have not yet been convicted and am thinking of fighting the arrest depending on the answer to the above. Anyone know if there are implication and if so what they are/could be

    Thanks

  • #2
    I was recently arrested for a DUI and am worried that it will affect my ability to extend my H1-B visa or have an impact on my green card processing. I have not yet been convicted and am thinking of fighting the arrest depending on the answer to the above. Anyone know if there are implication and if so what they are/could be

    Thanks

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, it will have implications. I am not sure of the severity, maybe some other folks can add to this.

      Comment


      • #4
        In my recent I-130 interview the officer asked me whether I ever had a DUI? He said, because of my prior implications, which are now no longer, it would cause problems if I would have something as simple as a DUI on my records.

        I answered: I don't drink and drive!

        Reminds me: When I took my divers license test here in the US, I think at least 50% of all the questions where alcohol related. I walked out of that office thinking, what was that? A traffic test????
        “...I may condemn what you say, but I will give my life for that you may say it”! - Voltaire

        Comment


        • #5
          DUI is not a CIMT, it's not an AF, well that's true for most DUI's. So, as long as it's just a simple (no intent) DUI, it *should* NOT impact your application unless you have a pattern of convictions.

          -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE-

          Comment


          • #6
            <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sfsfnow:
            I was recently arrested for a DUI and am worried that it will affect my ability to extend my H1-B visa or have an impact on my green card processing. I have not yet been convicted and am thinking of fighting the arrest depending on the answer to the above. Anyone know if there are implication and if so what they are/could be

            Thanks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

            Hi Sfsfnow,

            I have to say that you were not smart drinking and driving. Not sure how it will impact your ability to get a green card, but I hope it opened your eyes to the fact that you need to obey laws. DUI can have dire circumstances. Please don't let it happen again. Ever heard of designated drivers? It's a great practice!

            Comment


            • #7
              DUI in tself is not a roadblock to PR, nor cause to rescind one.
              I think many would recall Supreme Court ruling on DUI (or DWI?) where Justices ruled that such offence doesn't make one deportable under INA.

              It doesn't mean, of course, that one should drink and drive.
              God forbid, should you cause any irrepearable damage then it will be a whole different b.all game.
              Have all the good s.ex you can, in all the ways you can, for as long as ever you can !

              -- Sabuntium The Great

              Comment


              • #8
                DUI WILL Have a Great Affect on Processing, It Will Cause Difficulties In The Here and Now! Definitely Fight It! But If The OP Took That Chance It Can Be Damaging And Hinder The Processing Dramatically! . Not Un Winable! Do Drink! Don't Drive!!! Geeezzz!!!! No Big Deal $7000 - $10,000 In Legal fees, Plus Insurance Almost Un Obtainable! Misdemeanor. If You Are seeking Status In USA Follow The Rules! Make Getting Your Status Here Priority By Being Careful And Not Jeopardizing Lives Of Others! DUI In Itself = Misdemeanor. Killing Someone While Drinking and Driving = The End Of Your Life!!!
                USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

                Comment


                • #9
                  DUI is not a barrier to a green card, not a ground for removal. Simple DUI is usually a petty misdemeanor, and carries very little weight. However, multiple DUI convictions are indeed grounds for denial because of the medical grounds. The 9th circuit has determined that even several DUI convictions are not enough to deny a well founded application.

                  However, it's the OP who will have to live with it and learn the actual implications of the conduct, beyond any immigration consequences.

                  DUI may result in the death of innocent by-standers, may result in the OPs own death and injuries to others. Not the best way to end a good time with friends.

                  -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE-

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Houston:
                    DUI is not a barrier to a green card, not a ground for removal. Simple DUI is usually a petty misdemeanor, and carries very little weight. However, multiple DUI convictions are indeed grounds for denial because of the medical grounds. The 9th circuit has determined that even several DUI convictions are not enough to deny a well founded application.

                    However, it's the OP who will have to live with it and learn the actual implications of the conduct, beyond any immigration consequences.

                    DUI may result in the death of innocent by-standers, may result in the OPs own death and injuries to others. Not the best way to end a good time with friends.

                    -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                    AGAIN! Where You Reside Does Matter! . You Wont Be Denied! Nor Removed! But After The System Is Finished With You In "SOME Localities" You Will Be Begging To Go BACK!!!

                    Again The "COURTS" Where Many Officers And Upholders Of The Law! Regularily Do It Themselves!
                    USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The problem that I see is that the DUI will "brand him" for a very, very long time. Insurance will be a problem, and getting a job that requires driving will also become very difficult. And the shame will always be there, conviction or not.

                      -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE-

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Houston:
                        The problem that I see is that the DUI will "brand him" for a very, very long time. Insurance will be a problem, and getting a job that requires driving will also become very difficult. And the shame will always be there, conviction or not.

                        -THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                        Advice! If Anyone Is Seeking Status Here In USA. Be Careful To Stay OUT Of the SYSTEM!!! . It Will Add Hurdles The Seeker May Not not be able to Overcome! wasn't Status A Priority In The First Place??? Learn The Laws and Follow The F R E A K I N Rules! Same As Expected From Everyone Else!
                        USC and Legal, Honest Immigrant Alike Must Fight Against Those That Deceive and Disrupt A Place Of Desirability! All Are Victims of Fraud, Both USC and Honest Immigrant Alike! The bad can and does make it more difficult for the good! Be careful who y

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You should know and undertstand one thing,you do not have to be convicted in the US. . .
                          INS aka homeland security has excess to everyhting you broke the law against.
                          And DUI arrest is a big crime in the US,punishable by jailtime even.Alot of people from other countries do not realize that,because dui's in their native country is not of a big deal aka trouble as here.

                          Being arrested is in your criminal file,especially dui ones and anyone can look it up,even I. Its public record.

                          And you can not fight a DUI arrest? because they have the proof u were under the influence haha.

                          Anyway, u should not even think about your greencard,u are only here with a visa,i would be more worried about your Current status as a guest aka visa holder.
                          You already broke the the law as a visitor with a visa, now imagine how they'll see you if u apply or try to get a greencard.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is a bit lengthy, but should shed some light to the OP regarding DUI and immigration.


                            http://www.massbar.org/for-attorneys/publications/secti...eme-court-holds-that

                            U.S. Supreme Court holds that DUI does not constitute a removable offense for immigration purposes

                            By Javier F. Pico

                            Javier Pico practices at his firm in Boston, which focuses on immigration matters, including removal cases and visa processing cases, as well as residential real estate matters.
                            In Leocal v. Ashcroft, 125 S. Ct. 377, 543 U.S. __ (Nov. 9, 2004), a unanimous Supreme Court held that a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) with a mens rea of negligence or less is not a crime of violence, as defined under 18 U.S.C. ß 16, and, therefore, not an aggravated felony under INA ß 101(a)(43)(F), and thus cannot make a person removable.


                            Josue Leocal, a Haitian national, is a permanent U.S. resident older than 20. In 2000, he plead guilty to two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI and causing serious bodily injury in an accident, under Florida Statute ß 316.193(3)(c)(2). He was sentenced to a two-and-a-half-year term of imprisonment. While serving his term in prison, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, held an administrative removal hearing in which the immigration judge determined that Leocal's state conviction was a crime of violence, making Leocal an aggravated felon without any form of relief against removal. He was ordered removed to Haiti upon the completion of his state sentence.

                            The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Notably, the Florida statute under which Leocal was convicted required proof of causation of injury, but did not require proof of mental state. The Eleventh Circuit held that it was bound by its earlier decision in Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999), holding that a conviction under the Florida DUI statute is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. ß 16(a). This issue was decided with various results in different circuits. To resolve the conflict the Supreme Court heard the matter on certiorari, and unanimously reversed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling.

                            Under INA ß 101(a)(43)(F), a crime of violence is defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. ß 16, as a conviction with at least a one year sentence that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another," 18 U.S.C. ß 16(a), or "is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense," 18 U.S.C. ß 16(b).

                            With respect to subsection (a), the Court held that "[t]he critical aspect of ß 16(a) is that a crime of violence is one involving the "use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another." Giving these words their "ordinary or natural meaning," the Court reasoned that a person who accidentally "uses . . . physical force against" another by stumbling and falling into him does not actively employ force. The critical phrase of section 16(a) "most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct," the Court concluded. Accordingly, the Court found that a DUI offense with a mens rea of negligence or less is not a crime of violence as defined under section 16(a).

                            With respect to section 16(b), the Court determined that it "simply covers offenses that naturally involve a person acting in disregard of the risk that physical force might be used against another in committing an offense." The Court acknowledged that the language of section 16(b) is broader than the language of section 16(a), but found that the provisions should be construed identically because both contained the element of the use of physical force against the person or property of another. The Court distinguished the risk of use of force versus the risk of injury to another, clarifying that 18 U.S.C. ß 16(b) is concerned specifically with the use or risk of use of force as a required element in committing a crime against another, and not merely the risk of injury resulting from reckless conduct. Accordingly, the Court found that a DUI offense with a mens rea element of negligence or less is not a crime of violence as defined under section 16(b).

                            The Court reasoned that DUI crimes are not the types of crimes typically constituting a crime of violence, which are those using intentional physical force against another. Furthermore, the Court also noted that Congress had noted this distinction in the INA. INA ß 101(h) defines a "serious nonpolitical offense" as any felony, any crime of violence, or any crime of reckless driving or driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or prohibited substances if such crime involves personal injury to another.

                            The Court noted that in that statute Congress distinguished a crime of violence from a DUI, and that including DUI offenses in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. ß 16, would leave INA ß 101(h) devoid of meaning and in conflict with that "whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect." Finally, the Court clarified that those cases did not seek to present the question of whether an offense requiring proof of the reckless use of force against another is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. ß 16.

                            Having found that Leocal's conviction was neither a crime of violence nor was he an aggravated felon, the Court ordered Leocal, who was now in Haiti, to be brought back to the U.S. as a legal permanent resident and vacated his removal order.
                            By Javier F. Pico


                            Javier Pico practices at his firm in Boston, which focuses on immigration matters, including removal cases and visa processing cases, as well as residential real estate matters.
                            In Leocal v. Ashcroft, 125 S. Ct. 377, 543 U.S. __ (Nov. 9, 2004), a unanimous Supreme Court held that a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI) with a mens rea of negligence or less is not a crime of violence, as defined under 18 U.S.C. ß 16, and, therefore, not an aggravated felony under INA ß 101(a)(43)(F), and thus cannot make a person removable.


                            Josue Leocal, a Haitian national, is a permanent U.S. resident older than 20. In 2000, he plead guilty to two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol, DUI and causing serious bodily injury in an accident, under Florida Statute ß 316.193(3)(c)(2). He was sentenced to a two-and-a-half-year term of imprisonment. While serving his term in prison, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, held an administrative removal hearing in which the immigration judge determined that Leocal's state conviction was a crime of violence, making Leocal an aggravated felon without any form of relief against removal. He was ordered removed to Haiti upon the completion of his state sentence.

                            The Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Notably, the Florida statute under which Leocal was convicted required proof of causation of injury, but did not require proof of mental state. The Eleventh Circuit held that it was bound by its earlier decision in Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999), holding that a conviction under the Florida DUI statute is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. ß 16(a). This issue was decided with various results in different circuits. To resolve the conflict the Supreme Court heard the matter on certiorari, and unanimously reversed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling.

                            Under INA ß 101(a)(43)(F), a crime of violence is defined by reference to 18 U.S.C. ß 16, as a conviction with at least a one year sentence that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another," 18 U.S.C. ß 16(a), or "is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense," 18 U.S.C. ß 16(b).

                            With respect to subsection (a), the Court held that "[t]he critical aspect of ß 16(a) is that a crime of violence is one involving the "use . . . of physical force against the person or property of another." Giving these words their "ordinary or natural meaning," the Court reasoned that a person who accidentally "uses . . . physical force against" another by stumbling and falling into him does not actively employ force. The critical phrase of section 16(a) "most naturally suggests a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct," the Court concluded. Accordingly, the Court found that a DUI offense with a mens rea of negligence or less is not a crime of violence as defined under section 16(a).

                            With respect to section 16(b), the Court determined that it "simply covers offenses that naturally involve a person acting in disregard of the risk that physical force might be used against another in committing an offense." The Court acknowledged that the language of section 16(b) is broader than the language of section 16(a), but found that the provisions should be construed identically because both contained the element of the use of physical force against the person or property of another. The Court distinguished the risk of use of force versus the risk of injury to another, clarifying that 18 U.S.C. ß 16(b) is concerned specifically with the use or risk of use of force as a required element in committing a crime against another, and not merely the risk of injury resulting from reckless conduct. Accordingly, the Court found that a DUI offense with a mens rea element of negligence or less is not a crime of violence as defined under section 16(b).

                            The Court reasoned that DUI crimes are not the types of crimes typically constituting a crime of violence, which are those using intentional physical force against another. Furthermore, the Court also noted that Congress had noted this distinction in the INA. INA ß 101(h) defines a "serious nonpolitical offense" as any felony, any crime of violence, or any crime of reckless driving or driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or prohibited substances if such crime involves personal injury to another.

                            The Court noted that in that statute Congress distinguished a crime of violence from a DUI, and that including DUI offenses in the meaning of 18 U.S.C. ß 16, would leave INA ß 101(h) devoid of meaning and in conflict with that "whenever possible, every word of a statute should be given effect." Finally, the Court clarified that those cases did not seek to present the question of whether an offense requiring proof of the reckless use of force against another is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. ß 16.

                            Having found that Leocal's conviction was neither a crime of violence nor was he an aggravated felon, the Court ordered Leocal, who was now in Haiti, to be brought back to the U.S. as a legal permanent resident and vacated his removal order.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              PROUD USC,

                              That article was interesting,
                              but now keep in mind, this article about the dui case and that persons situation about being removed from the country was interesting.

                              Now imagine, the person in the article was ALREADY permament resident,and he had to go through all this trouble. Because of a DUI.

                              Remember,the person who posted this question with the DUI is in the US as a visitor a guest with a VISA, working Visa.
                              now imagine that outcome.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X