This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Criminal Law Crimmigration A Practitioner's Guide Cheryl Geiser C


ongress has long exercised broad plenary authority over who may enter the United States, remain in the United States and become residents of the


United States. Tis authority is used to refuse admission or residency to certain individuals found to have engaged in criminal activity.1


times with respect to the penalization of criminal conduct by foreign nationals.2


We are currently living in restrictive What may seem like a routine criminal


case to a seasoned criminal practitioner may actually be an immigration abyss for the client. It is essential that attorneys practicing criminal law and representing foreign nationals be savvy with respect to the immigration consequences of criminal convictions or activity. Te Supreme Court of the United States recently held that constitutionally competent counsel must advise clients that a conviction would subject an individual to automatic deportation finding that:


It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant—whether a citizen or not—is left to the “mercies of incompetent counsel.” Richardson, 397 U. S., at 771. To satisfy this responsibility, we now hold that counsel must inform her client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation. Our longstanding Sixth Amendment precedents, the seriousness of deportation as a consequence of a criminal plea, and the concomitant impact of deportation on families living lawfully in this country demand no less.3


Tus, representing a foreign national charged with a


crime requires an extremely detailed analysis of the charges brought against the client vis-á-vis the immigration consequences associated with the charge, and a sophisticated development of defense goals for the foreign national. A prudent criminal defense attorney will work hand-in-hand with an immigration attorney once it appears that his client is not a citizen of the United States. Tis will ensure that, when possible, immigration consequences for criminal


conduct can either be avoided or limited, and when there is 1 Alien Act of 1978, 1 Stat. 570; Act of March 3, 1875, 18 Stat. 477; Act of February 26, 1885, 23 Stat. 332; Act of February 23, 1887, 24 Stat. 414; Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (AEDPA); Div. C of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1996 (HR 3610), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (IIRAIRA).


2 U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Table 37), available at www.dhs.gov, Immigration Statistics.(In 1984, only 1,000 people were removed based on criminal charges or convictions; in 2007, close to 100,000 were removed based on criminal charges or convictions.)


3 Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473-2010.


no immigration alternative, the client can be advised as such, and begin to make preparations and arrangements for his return to his home country.


Consequences of Criminal Activity Tere are three main categories of offenses that can damage


an individual’s immigration status or potential for immigration status: (1) deportability grounds, (2) inadmissibility grounds, and (3) aggravated felonies. Deportability grounds subject an individual otherwise in the United States pursuant to valid lawful status to deportation.


Inadmissibility grounds can bar


an individual from extending their status, changing their status, applying for permanent residency or entering the United States if they are outside of the United States. If an individual entered the United States without inspection, he will be found inadmissible and placed in removal proceedings.


Finally, the most serious


class of offenses involves aggravated felonies. An aggravated felony conviction is a ground for deportability and can prevent an individual from changing his or her status, becoming a resident or applying for relief from removal. It is important to note that the list of crimes considered to be aggravated felonies for immigration purposes includes many misdemeanors.


Trial Reporter / Summer 2011 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68