Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

retail theft case, help

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

  • retail theft case, help

    I was arrested recently. They charged me Retail Theft of total value $97 in Illinois. It's a class A misdemeanor in IL, the max jail sentence is under 1 year as listed in the criminal statutes of IL. and the max probation period could be 2 years. http://www.illinoisdefenselawyer.com/page-3.htm
    My current status is H-1B. The Labor Certification is in progress. The court date is coming.
    Would anybody tell me what the immigration consequences it could be for my case? Will INS deport me because of that? Will the INS deny my H-1B extension application? Will I definitely have to be interviewed in the local INS later? and Will INS deny my adjustment of status application?

    Thanks a lot,

  • #2
    I was arrested recently. They charged me Retail Theft of total value $97 in Illinois. It's a class A misdemeanor in IL, the max jail sentence is under 1 year as listed in the criminal statutes of IL. and the max probation period could be 2 years. http://www.illinoisdefenselawyer.com/page-3.htm
    My current status is H-1B. The Labor Certification is in progress. The court date is coming.
    Would anybody tell me what the immigration consequences it could be for my case? Will INS deport me because of that? Will the INS deny my H-1B extension application? Will I definitely have to be interviewed in the local INS later? and Will INS deny my adjustment of status application?

    Thanks a lot,

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't know specifically for Illinois but here you can get a pretty good overview od shoplifting in general.

      Comment


      • #4
        http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums?a=...851#1226053851

        Comment


        • #5
          MISDEMEANOR THEFT WITH *ONE YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE* CONSTITUTED AGGRAVATED FELON Y United States v. Graham, 169 F.3d 787 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 116 (1999).

          Comment


          • #6
            Dontcha think you should have thought about all that BEFORE you committed your theft!? Hell-O.

            Comment


            • #7
              As far as deportation is concerned:

              Yes, * *, is right - in case a misdemeanor theft offense is punished by a certain State court by a jail sentence of 1-year (even suspended) it constitutes an "aggravated felony" for the purposes of INS, hence makes the alien deportable.

              On the other hand, theft qualifies most of the time as a "crime involving moral turpitude", hence one should check whether it makes deportable the alien under this ground. The law says that an alien is deportable for a single crime involving moral turpitude if the maximum penalty for the offense is 1-year or more in jail. By what you are saying, you are accused of a misdemeanor offense for which the maximum jail sentence is under 1 year, so the eventual conviction for this offense will not make you deportable under the "moral turpitude" grounds. If you will be convicted for another misdemeanor crime of moral turpitude in the future you would definitely be deportable under a separate clause providing for deportation of aliens who have been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude regardless of the maximum penalty jail sentence or the actual imprisonment term the alien has been ultimately sentenced to.


              As far as admissibility issues are concerned (your eligibility to apply for AOS): to be eligible for an (immigrant) visa you have to be admissible, which in your case, will mean whether an eventual conviction for this particular crime of moral turpitude renders you inadmissible or not. The law provides that if the maximum penalty under the State criminal law is no more than a year in jail and you were not sentenced to jail for more than six months (even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended) the bar to inadmissibility may not apply to you after all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Another criminal immigrant your going to help stay in the country. It is disgusting!!You should be ashamed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  .

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Law is Law is right.
                    I don't live, or intend to live in the USA (very happy where I am now), but people who do, and knowingly commit an offense that they know can get them in troble with the INS, should think about consequences before, and not after the fact.

                    My only reason for travel to the US is business or fun, and it would never cross my mind to go shoplifting. In my case, the consequences would be making my business life with the USA very difficult. Luckyly, I can afford to buy most stuff that tempts shoplifters, but even in my student days, when I couldn't afford them, I prefered to save and buy, over steal and risk.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To two grounds, Thanks a lot. But how does the INS think about the possible maximum 2 years probation term?

                      To those who pass your judgement on me, everybody makes mistake. I am not a bad guy. I just had a bad idea and did a wrong thing at that moment.I learned from that and knew it won't happen anymore.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Viking - perhaps you did not quite get the point of "Law Is Law" posting - she or he was perhaps replying to the previous poster who wanted the people on this board not to disclose what the law says, but to become judgemental and mislead this thread's starter via incorrect information.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Straight probation / conditional discharge / unsupervised probation without a suspended jail sentence is not considered a part of the jail sentence for immigration purposes.

                          This might prove helpful as well:

                          http://discuss.ilw.com/eve/forums?q=...1&r=5016049671

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As far as "conviction" issues are concerned:

                            Counsel can agree with prosecution and court to defer one or more of the statutory elements required to constitute a "conviction" under the new immigration-law definition:

                            a) "Deferred prosecution" ("deferred plea") involves an agreement to postpone the entry of a 'guilty' or 'no contest' plea in the criminal case for some length of time, for example, 6 months or 1 year, so that the plea is not entered until this time has passed. If the defendant has no new arrests, satisfactorily completes drug counseling, and meets whatever other conditions are stated as part of the agreement, then the charges will be dismissed at the end of the deferral period. This arrangement does not constitute a "conviction" under the new definition, since no plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' has been entered at any point, the non-citizen has admitted no facts, and no one has found him or her guilty of any offense.

                            b) "Deferred verdict" involves an agreement in which the defendant waives his or her right to confront witnesses and right to a jury trial, and agrees to submit the case to a court trial on the basis of certain papers such as the police report or preliminary hearing transcript. Under this agreement, the court would defer rendering a verdict until some length of time has passed, for example, 6 months or 1 year. If the defendant meets whatever conditions are stated in the agreement, suffers no new arrests, satisfactorily attends drug counseling, and the like, then the charges will be dismissed at the end of the deferral period. Again, this arrangement does not meet the new statutory definition of "conviction" since no one has found the non-citizen guilty, no plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' has been entered at any point, and the defendant has not admitted any facts, much less sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty.

                            c) "Deferred sentence" involves entry of a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest', but deferral of sentence. In order to constitute a conviction, the new definition requires a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest', or a verdict of 'guilty', and also requires that "the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed." If the court defers making any such order imposing punishment or restraint on liberty, until after an agreed deferral period of time has passed, and then dismisses all charges, without ever imposing punishment or restraint, no "conviction" would have occurred at any time under the new definition. Note that any conditions of this arrangement that involve any "restraint on the alien's liberty" could not be imposed by court order; they may be included in a private agreement between prosecution and defense, however, as long as the court does not order them. When they have been satisfied, prosecution and defense could jointly move the court to dismiss all charges.


                            -- Counsel can attempt to construct a disposition of the case that fits within a federal definition that is not considered a conviction.

                            a) For example, if the state defendant obtains an "expungement" of the state conviction for successful completion of probation, under circumstances analogous to the Federal First Offender Act, there is an Equal Protection argument that the expunged state conviction should receive the same treatment (Congress does not consider it a conviction for any purpose) that it would have received if a federal expungement had been granted in federal court. Since this is a constitutional argument, Congress is not free to alter this result by legislation, so the federal courts should construe the new definition of conviction to harmonize with this result, give effect to both statutes, and consider that the state analogue to the federal expungement does not constitute a conviction under the new definition.

                            b) Counsel can attempt to construct a disposition that could only be a juvenile disposition, if prosecuted in federal court. The same Equal Protection argument can then be effective to force the INS to consider this arrangement not to be a conviction for immigration purposes. A uniform federal definition of conviction is necessary to avoid arbitrary results; the federal statutory scheme should therefore be used not only for federal outcomes, but also for analogous state outcomes.

                            c) Counsel can attempt to analogize to expungement statutes in force in the D.C., and make the same argument.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Does what "convictions" says applies to drug cases only, or to all crimes?

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X