Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

could i get denied naturalization?

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

  • Antifascist1
    replied
    pablo,

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

    Leave a comment:


  • pablo006
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prof.
    replied
    Houston...

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prof.
    replied
    Houston..

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    No crime is taken lightly by immigration officials, but the conduct as defined by the statute simply do not amount to moral turpitude. When it comes to CIMT's moral turpitude can be established by the requirement of an "evil or vile" intent or an intent to defraud when it comes to crimes against property or government. Crimes of violence require the use or potential use of "intentional violence" noting that the "criminal neglect" qualifies to establish such intent.
    Making a "decision to engage in violence" is not per-se breaking the law. Breaking the law is the use of "violence" for an unlawful purpose. The principle of self-defense involves the use of violence and it is legal, but extending that violence to unreasonable levels to "exact justice by one's hand" is unlawful and therefore a crime of violence.
    Again, all crimes are subject to the very same level of scrutiny but some are simply not considered CIMT.
    If you have questions you must seek legal representation, this is not legal advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prof.
    replied
    The moral of these questions is this: If you come to Uncle Sam as an immigrant, you are a guest of this country. As such, you are under a high level of scrutiny from all corners of this country to behave yourself and conduct yourself within the law of this country. So, the same goes for your guest, if he guest pees in your sink, then has already violated the basic tenents of your household, which is to use the bathroom to pee and drop a load of Michael.

    Once you made a decision to engage in violence, you broke the law. In most states, such crimes are taken seriously and are deportable by the USCIS. So, I will tell you that you got off the hook. As much as I loathe Michael, I see him as an Satan, a nut and a buttman for Tom Tancredo the bigot... He has critical points on his hypothetical situation of you killing someone because you didn't have proper documentation. Pabloo.. Would you appreciate it if someone broke into your car and drove it Canada without your permission? This is the same for the states, you are given the permission to operate a vehicle with the State's permission which comes in the form of driver's license. By driving without DL = someone breaking into your car. Car=state

    So, while these crimes would be given less scrutiny by the immigration officials, if your case lands on the desk of a nutty officer, you may be in for some hard time with the approval of your petition. For now, I will strongly recommend that you organize all your documents which proof that you paid your dues to soceity and you are cleared. Moreover, cut the B.U.L.L by behaving and obeying the laws of this country... or you will be on one of the free flights out of here forever. Remember that some crimes render you inadmissiable forever in the US.

    Congratulations on your marriage, and I hope you don't beat the devil out of your future wife. If you do, be rest assured that you are gone for good. I will personally come to kick you in the B.A.L.L.S and remove them, as you are making this institution of manhood a sham and insignificant. I hate and have no respect for little sissy men who bully women. It is the lowest form of manhood, so you are warned...

    Behave and enjoy the wife of your youth...

    Leave a comment:


  • pablo006
    replied
    prof, im sure that a pile of steaming poo in my sink has nothing to do with immigration at all, but go ahead.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prof.
    replied
    Pabloo...

    How will you feel if a guest in your house pee in the kitchen sink? In addition, he does a no 2 on your bed instead of the bathroom?

    These issues are relevant to your case and will explain to you how. So, respond to my posting.

    Leave a comment:


  • pablo006
    replied
    thanks 4 being helpful. i will go over it with my attys. houston and antifascist1 internet needs more people like you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Houston
    replied
    Most traffic violations are regulatory offenses and are not CIMT's (Matter of Abreu). Driving without a license, uninsured driving and simple DUI are not CIMT's as they lack the required intent constructed as an element of the offense. Consult with an attorney if you have questions, this is not legal advice.

    Leave a comment:


  • pablo006
    replied
    liten here, less-than-ejaculate, no little girls walk on the hwy, and if they did, tough luck as pedestrians have no right of way or shouldnt even be on the hwy. meanwhile, i wish i could have run you over when you were 10. 2400+ post and you call me lowlife. wow you really got your hands full dont you. quit wasting my time osama bin screwin your momma. eat poo and go back to your crypt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    What if you ran over a little 10 year old girl? How would that make you feel? Of course you wouldn't feel anything you lowlife.

    Leave a comment:


  • pablo006
    replied
    no wonder new yorkers are often referred to as rude and obnoxious people. I came here to get help instead i got some holier than thou bs. on a motorcycle i would be lucky to survive a crash and if i did by chance injure someone, (you already made your mind up) but i am everything but penniless. oh and mr.michael aka i cant keep my wife happy, keep your comments to yourself or find something better to do other than be a pinche mamon. my ejaculation has better character than you sorry.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X