Source: http://crimmigration.com/category/1st-circuit-court-of-appeals/
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 15:35:46
Document Index: 153736076

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 236', '§ 160', '§ 165', '§ 236', '§ 236', '§ 1226', '§ 236']

1st Circuit Court of Appeals	crImmigration.comThe intersection of criminal law and immigration lawHome
1st Circuit rolls back detention reforms In a disheartening move that is likely to create more impediments to migrants trying to escape detention pending removal proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit overturned a district court decision that imposed substantial limits on the federal government’s use of INA § 236(c), the so-called mandatory detention statute. Reid v. Donelan, No. 14-1270, slip op. (1st Cir. April 13, 2016). The court held that migrants detained unreasonably are entitled to an individualized hearing, but it tossed out the district court’s conclusion that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause [...]Posted by César on April 28, 2016 on 4:00 am Leave a Comment Filed Under: 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, bond, burden, Due Process Clause, imprisonmentFirst Circuit to decide whether removal requires proportionality review The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard oral arguments on April 9, 2014 about the role of proportionality in removal decisions. Hinds v. Holder, No. 13-2129 (1st Cir. 2014). Is removal and the inability to return to the United States simply too weighty a sanction for the law to mete out?
This case involves a 58-year-old Jamaican citizen, Rogelio Blackman Hinds, who has lived in the United Since 1975, was honorably discharged from the U.S. Marines, has five U.S. citizen children, and a U.S. citizen wife. He also has a serious criminal history, having been convicted of federal [...]Posted by César on May 13, 2014 on 9:00 am 2 Comments Filed Under: 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Amendment, 8th Amendment, Due Process Clause, proportionality1 Cir: Rejects Padilla claim where underlying conviction not challenged The U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a Padilla-based challenge to a removal order because the noncitizen had not challenged the underlying criminal conviction in the proper state court. Matos-Santana v. Holder, No. 10-2373, slip op. (1st Cir. Nov. 2, 2011) (Howard, Ripple, and Selya, JJ.). Judge Selya wrote the panel’s decision.
This case involved an LPR who was convicted by guilty plea of New York robbery in the second degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 160.10, and auto stripping in the third degree, N.Y. Penal Law § 165.09. Removal proceedings were initiated when he traveled abroad and returned to [...]Posted by César on February 28, 2012 on 9:00 am Leave a Comment Filed Under: 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, Padilla v. Kentucky, post-conviction relief, post-departure bar, right to counsel1st Circuit: Mandatory detention provision applies only when released from custody for an offense that is itself listed in INA § 236(c) In a published decision released last week, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the mandatory detention provision, INA § 236(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), applies only when a person is released from custody for a removable offense enumerated in § 236(c). Saysana v. Gillen, No. 09-1179, slip op. (1st Cir. Dec. 22, 2009) (Howard, Ripple, Selya). Judge Ripple wrote the decision for the unanimous panel.
This decision overrules the BIA's precedential decision in Matter of Saysana, 24 I&N Dec. 602 (BIA 2008). In Matter of Saysana, the Board held that the mandatory detention [...]Posted by César on December 29, 2009 on 5:49 pm 10 Comments Filed Under: 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, mandatory detentionSubscribe