I'll stay... as long as you love me

For singer Justin Bieber, things are getting worse. He turned himself in to authorities in Toronto, Canada, this week on charges of assaulting a limousine driver. And over 100,000 people have signed a petition to the White House, asking that Bieber be deported. How could these two events impact Justin's future immigration status in the United States?

Don't make him fade away.
Photo used under Creative Commons license from @ilovejb123 on Flickr.

If it turns out that Justin is convicted of crimes in any country, and he decides to apply for a green card, he will have to explain his criminal record. Applicants for certain types of immigration benefits, such as asylum or a green card, must disclose any prior criminal convictions. This is true whether the crime occurred in the U.S. or in any other country. If a person doesn't disclose his or her criminal record, it is likely that the government may still find out. Prior criminal convictions won't necessarily prevent someone from getting approved for immigration benefits, but it is important to talk with an attorney before applying to be aware of any risks. The list of crimes that can impact someone's immigration status is very complicated, and an experienced attorney can help determine whether someone's record will cause problems.

Could the White House petition result in Justin's deportation? It's very unlikely, because Justin's crimes likely aren't serious enough to qualify him for deportation. He also has many fans in the U.S. who would like him to stay! Having broad support from your community can be important in certain immigration settings. Under certain circumstances, the law allows the government to exercise discretion, and decide whether a person should be allowed to stay in the United States despite some mishap. Again, it is important to talk to an attorney before requesting prosecutorial discretion. An attorney can help you figure out whether your circumstances would qualify you to apply, and whether you would have a good chance of success.

"Never Say Never"... to Justin Bieber's deportation?

Celebrities such as Lindsay Lohan, Nicolas Cage, and Paris Hilton often make the news when they get on the wrong side of the law. But the recent arrest of Justin Bieber, on allegations of drag racing and driving under the influence of alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs, could lead to more serious consequences than just a fine or jail time.

... Except the Miami Beach PD, that is.
Photo used under Creative Commons license from @jiposhy on Flickr.

Bieber is Canadian, and does not hold U.S. citizenship. He is currently in the U.S. on a temporary visa, based on his extraordinary musical abilities. However, because Justin hasn't been formally charged yet, it is unclear whether the offenses would impact his immigration status. Non-citizens in the U.S., such as Bieber, may face deportation or become ineligible for certain types of immigration relief after being convicted of certain crimes. These crimes are formally named "aggravated felonies" or "crimes of moral turpitude" in the law. Although those titles sound serious, some relatively commonplace acts can result in criminal convictions under those categories.

For more news about Justin Bieber's arrest, read this CNN article.

If you are interested in applying for immigration status based on extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (an O visa), Glickman Turley may be able to help you. Even if you aren't a musical sensation, if you are an immigrant facing criminal charges, or if you are an immigrant who already has a criminal record, then it is important for you to talk to an attorney about your immigration status. Contact us today to see how we may be able to help.

Is burglary a violent felony?

In an opinion called Descamps v. United States, No. 11-9540 (June 20, 2013), the Supreme Court changed the way that certain convictions are handled under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). Under ACCA, people who commit crimes with firearms get a harsher punishment on their third "violent felony" or "serious drug crime" conviction. ACCA has a minimum term of fifteen years, and a maximum of life.

However, it's often difficult to tell what qualifies as a "violent felony," because each state gets to define its own crimes.  Judges have struggled with this for a while, resulting in a long string of court opinions on the topic.

In this case, Mr. Descamps was convicted of burglary in California before being accused of shooting a truck to scare the person inside. According to the previous interpretation of ACCA, his burglary would be considered a "violent felony." This meant he would receive harsher penalties upon being convicted of the new crime, which would be his third qualifying felony.

However, the California definition of burglary is less strict than ACCA's definition of burglary. This means that some minor behavior (like shoplifting)  could result in a burglary conviction under California law, but not meet the definition of burglary for ACCA. The court determined that Mr. Descamps was not guilty of a "violent felony" when he committed his burglary, and overturned his ACCA conviction.

Even though this case concerns federal criminal sentencing under ACCA, it is possible that the principles will be applied to the analysis of "crimes of violence" for aggravated felonies, and "crimes of moral turpitude" in the immigration context.

If you have questions about how a criminal conviction might affect your immigration status, or if you are facing court proceedings in immigration or criminal court, please contact Glickman Turley LLP to see if we can help. 

For more information about the Descamps case, click here.

Immigration Consequences of Marijuana Convictions Are Narrowed

In an opinion released today, Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court decided that a state conviction for possession with intent to distribute a small amount of marijuana does not constitute “illicit trafficking in a controlled substance” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Therefore, a non-citizen convicted of this crime would not be subject to mandatory deportation, and would not lose eligibility for some forms of discretionary relief from deportation.

To avoid triggering immigration consequences, the conviction must be for sharing a "small amount" of marijuana where no money was exchanged. The Court did not define "small amount," but Mr. Moncrieffe had 1.3 grams of marijuana and this was deemed to be small. The Court urged a "commonsense conception" of the terms involved, and the opinion drew a distinction between sharing marijuana and conducting commercial drug dealing.

This case comes just weeks after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court determined that "social sharing of marijuana is akin to simple possession, and does not constitute the facilitation of a drug transfer from seller to buyer that remains the hallmark of drug distribution." The SJC found that sharing a joint is a civil infraction and not a criminal offense. In two related cases, the SJC found that non-criminal possession or use of marijuana cannot be the basis of a search. The Court also stated that growing one ounce or less of marijuana for personal use only should not be considered a crime.

If you are facing criminal charges related to marijuana, or immigration issues that come from a criminal conviction, please contact our office to see how we could help you.

Supreme Court to Hear Cases About Dog Sniffing Dogs

The New York Times reported on October 29, 2012, that the US Supreme Court will hear cases involving Aldo, a German shepherd, and Franky, a chocolate Labrador retriever. The cases focus on how accurate a dog's nose is when trained to sniff drugs as interpreted under the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search.

In 2005, Justice Stevens opined that a drug-sniffing dog does not invade a human's right to privacy because "no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess." In his 2005 dissent, Justice Souter referred to a study that showed "dogs in artificial testing situations return false positives anywhere from 12.5 to 60 percent of the time," and that "[t]he infallible dog...is a creature of legal fiction."

Some drug-sniffing dogs are more accurate than others, and some have good days and bad days, according to the article. The result? Difficulty determining false positives from real ones. In 2006, Aldo sniffed chemicals used for concocting methamphetamines in Clayton Harris's pick up truck in Bristol, Florida, after he had been pulled over by police for driving with an expired license place. The Florida Supreme Court concluded that Aldo was unreliable and "ordered that the evidence he found be suppressed." Franky's case involved whether police are permitted to use drug-sniffing dogs outside of people's homes to detect the scent of drugs and drug-making chemicals. The Florida Supreme Court threw out the evidence brought forth by Franky's nose. The US Supreme Court will hear these cases this month.

For more on this story, click here.

For representation on criminal matters, please contact Glickman Turley LLP at 617-399-7770.

Glickman Turley's experienced attorneys represent individuals on a wide range of immigration matters, as well as other legal issues. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss representation on immigration matters, real estate purchase and sales, condominium associations, criminal defense, non-profit law, civil litigation, business litigation, business law, trademark law, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex co-parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.