No announcement yet.

could i get denied naturalization?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16

    Here is scenario:

    Pablo is convicted of pushing his wife against the wall.

    Hudson is convicted of pushing cocaine in his neighborhood.

    Both guys apply for AOS, and guess who is going to be under more scrutiny, and it won't be Pablo. The second crime is more egregious than the 1st one. I am not in anyway condoning violence against women, and see my previous comments to Pablo regarding treatment of women.


    • #17
      You're right that the second alien would be subject to more grounds of inadmissibility but it's solely because he engaged in offenses against the controlled substances law. The second alien is convicted of a drug related offense, and CIS has reason to believe he is a drug dealer, those are separate grounds of inadmissibility not related to the criminal grounds.
      Say instead one offense is aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony and the other is aggravated DUI under AZ law (DUI while suspended). Both are CIMT's and both trigger inadmissibility. Both would cause the very same consequences to the offenders rendering them inadmissible.
      Immigration law is not criminal law, even past criminal behavior in the form of recidivist sentence enhancements are not considered under the categorical analysis.


      • #18

        You just made the point which I thought I was making the time on Pablo's issue.

        Of course, the severity of the crime and the "intention" gives weigh to the adjudication of the matter. As such, once you commit a felony that is deemed too egregious by the State, then you are also screwed on the immigration side.

        If you beat your wife, isn't USCIS entitled to believe that you are a wife abuser, who lack a high moral integrity to be part of the US soceity? I mean, if USCIS looks only at drug related offenses, though are extremely serious, then the US could be importing wife beaters, and exporting drug dealers.

        Of course, I know that criminal law differs from immigration law. However, criminal law has a strong bearing on the immigration law, especially on cases such as Pablo. For example, if you are convicted of a check fraud, it is highly unlikely that you will be part of the US soceity for a very long time, especially if you are an immigrant. I will be shocked that if such an immigrant applied for a particular benefit from USCIS and got an approval. You know why? fraud though prosecuted by state, it is a federal crime and a serious offense which is punishable by a long time in jail.


        • #19
          The severity of the crime and the intention of the offender are not relevant to the adjudicator. The only things relevant to the adjudicator are the elements of the offense and the intent required by the statute.
          The courts have ruled that the severity of the crime or the conduct of the criminal are not relevant. In this context, petty theft carries the same weight as assault with intent to kill from the immigration point of view. That is the primordial reason as to why they created the "petty exception" to avoid draconian outcomes.
          It is troublesome to come to peace with the idea that petty theft is the same as aggravated assault with intent to kill, but it is at least in the eyes of CIS. Take the previous example and consider the two applicants decide to appeal their order of removal. Even when convicted of different crimes, offenses that are more severe than others, their appeals would read the same "the respondent challenges his/her order of removal as an alien convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude not resulting from a single scheme" The courts do not have jurisdiction to review the oder but then would move to consider wether or not the crimes are in fact CIMT.
          Again, the severity of the crime and the actual conduct of the offender is not important, once a crime is determined to be a CIMT the INA kicks in and the rest is history.
          Example: Mike and John are LPR's. They both received their green cards back in 2000. In 2001 Mike was convicted of petty theft and John was arrested for attempted sexual assault but was able to enter a plea to misdemeanor assault (30 days in jail). In 2004 Mike is again arrested for shoplifting a pack of gum while John is arrested in another state for attempted sexual assault but pleaded to simple assault (2nd offense with a maximum of 6 months in jail and a sentence imposed of 4 months). John gets out of prison and to celebrate beats up his best friend who turned him in the first time and enters a guilty plea to battery (misdemeanor with a 6 months max.)
          Under INA, Mike is deported and John remains enjoying the benefits of full-blown LPR status even when he committed serious offenses. Further, John does not have any CIMT on his record.


          • #20
            ahah, well thanks alot guys. I appriciate your help. Prof., btw i got into a fight with my girlfriends ex. they have a kid and he came over drunk and started screaming and cursing in my front yard. MINE NOT MY GF'S. anyway he started punching first cause i wouldnt let her come out to talk with him.


            • #21

              why wouldn't you make an appointment with an immigration attorney who handles these kind of cases?


              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

              Home Page

              Immigration Daily


              Processing times

              Immigration forms

              Discussion board



              Twitter feed

              Immigrant Nation


              CLE Workshops

              Immigration books

              Advertise on ILW



              About ILW.COM

              Connect to us



              Immigration Daily