First Circuit Holds Malicious Destruction Of Property Considered Crime Of Moral Turpitude

The First Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the crime of malicious destruction of property is a crime of moral turpitude for immigration purposes.   As a result, an immigrant convicted of this crime may be subject to deportation or exclusion from the United States depending upon the persons immigration status and criminal history.   The Court found "malicious destruction
of property in Massachusetts requires 'gratuitous, excessive violence purposefully designed to intimidate and overpower, or destructive acts that were by design and hostile to the owner of
the property, whoever that may have been.'"  Therefore it involves moral turpitude under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  In this case, the criminal defendant had admitted to sufficient facts to establish that he had broken some glass and thrown some furniture around while drunk.

 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. 

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Petitioner in Jabri

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rendered its decision in the case of Abdallah Jabri v. Holder on March 16, 2012. The Appeals Court ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) erred when it upheld the holding of an immigration judge (IJ) that the petitioner, a native and citizen of Jordan, had not  made credible claims and therefore denied him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CIA). Petitioner had appealed on the basis that the IJ and BIA had ignored material portions of evidence that supported his claim while focusing on minor and nonexistent inconsistencies to deny him relief. The Court agreed with the Petitioner, holding that "The IJ must...present a reasoned analysis of the evidence as a whole. We are not satisfied that the IJ has done so here."


Petitioner and his family entered the United States and lived in New Hampshire when he was a child. They overstayed their visas and  removal proceedings were initiated against Petitioner in April 2009. However, Petitioner and his family had converted from Islam to Christianity during their years living in the United States and Petitioner feared he would be persecuted on account of his conversion if he entered Jordan. The Court noted "There was evidence that the Jordanian constitution stipulates that Muslims' personal status is governed by Islamic law, according to which apostasy may be punished by an inability to own property, find employment, marry, or maintain custody of one's children." Petitioner also feared his grandfather, a prominent member of the Islamic community, would instigate an honor killing against him for converting to Christianity. 


For more on this case, click here. 

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 parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters.  

First Circuit Held that Immigration Court Deprived Defendant of Due Process in US v. Miszczuk

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that even though the defendant in US v. Miszczuk was removable based on his past criminal convictions, the Immigration Court failed to put on record any findings of fact or law that substantiated the removal order. The First Circuit highlighted that even though immigration court proceedings are within the executive branch of the government, they are still civil proceedings that must meet the constitutional standards of due process. 


The defendant had been subject to a final order of removal by the Immigration Court. He subsequently did not cooperate with officials to effectuate the deportation back to his native Poland by refusing to sign travel documents. After being detained for five years, the defendant was also charged criminally with "willful failure or refusal to make a timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to his departure." 


The First Circuit called this an "unusual criminal offense" that provides the defendant the option to request the Court to review the validity of the removal order before he could be brought to trial on the criminal charges. The defendant exercised this option and the First Circuit concluded that "The absence of any findings of fact, or documented application of the facts to the law by the immigration officer in this case may be enough for this Court to find the removal order inadequate and to dismiss the criminal case...Absent clear findings of removability, this Court cannot invent reasons by which the defendant might be lawfully convicted." Therefore, Immigration Court proceedings need to meet procedural and substantive due process requirements. 


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, probate matters including wills, powers of attorney, health care proxy, same-sex parent adoptions, guardianships, animal law, or LGBT legal matters