Archive | immigration

Friday, June 14th, 2019

Second Circuit defines when it is illegal for an immigrant to possess a firearm

On June 13, 2019, the Second Circuit affirmed the gun possession conviction in US v. Balde.

The story of this case began in 2006, when Mr. Balde’s temporary permission to be in the United States legally was revoked while he was visiting his mother in Guinea during her final illness. He returned by way of JFK airport, where he was informed for the first time that his legal status had been cancelled. He was detained, and the government, alleging that he was inadmissible, initiated removal proceedings. Eventually he was ordered removed, but was then released while he challenged his removal.

To make a long story short, in 2015, over seven years after he received a final order of removal, Mr. Balde was involved in a fight in a Bronx delicatessen and allegedly pulled out a gun. He pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by …

Posted by
Categories: immigration

Posted By
Categories: immigration

Continue Reading

The Second Circuit has withdrawn its opinion in Thompson v. Barr

On May 30, 2019, the Second Circuit withdrew the per curiam opinion in Thompson v. Barr, #17-3494, that was issued on May 13. The opinion found that NY assault in the second degree (NYPL § 120.05(1)) is an aggravated felony crime of violence for immigration purposes under the force clause of 18 USC § 16(a).

The panel opinion in Thompson did not discuss whether the fact that a crime can be committed by omission as well as by commission affects whether that offense “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” 18 USC § 16(a). The pro se petitioner did not raise that issue, and it is pending before the Second Circuit in US v. Scott, #18-163 (argued Jan. 10, 2019). This probably accounts for the decision to withdraw the Thompson opinion.…


Posted By
Categories: crime of violence, immigration

Continue Reading
Tuesday, December 4th, 2018

Ninth Circuit Holds Statute Barring “Encouraging and Inducing an Alien” Abridges Constitutionally-Protected Speech

Something to look out for on the immigration front:

The Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) which prohibits “encouraging and inducing an alien to remain in the United States” abridges constitutionally-protected speech. Because “[a]t the very least, it is clear that the statute potentially criminalizes the simple words . . . “I encourage you to stay here,” the statute “criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected expression” and therefore is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

The case is United States v. Sineneng-Smith, and you can access the opinion here.…

Posted by
Categories: immigration

Posted By
Categories: immigration

Continue Reading