Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Santa Usuga v. INS, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views5 pages
    The court denied the petitioner's request for a stay of deportation and denied relief. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief from deportation or judicial review. While the petitioner claimed he was not warned of immigration consequences, he could not collaterally attack his criminal convictions in deportation proceedings. The petitioner's contention that he had not been convicted of a "trafficking" or "aggravated felony" offense was incorrect based on the definitions of those terms. The petitioner also did not show eligibility for discretionary relief because he had entered as a visitor but remained longer than permitted.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1995-04-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 95-1058

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court denied the petitioner's request for a stay of deportation and denied relief. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief from deportation or judicial review. While the petitioner claimed he was not warned of immigration consequences, he could not collaterally attack his criminal convictions in deportation proceedings. The petitioner's contention that he had not been convicted of a "trafficking" or "aggravated felony" offense was incorrect based on the definitions of those terms. The petitioner also did not show eligibility for discretionary relief because he had entered as a visitor but remained longer than permitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views5 pages

    Santa Usuga v. INS, 1st Cir. (1995)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court denied the petitioner's request for a stay of deportation and denied relief. The court found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief from deportation or judicial review. While the petitioner claimed he was not warned of immigration consequences, he could not collaterally attack his criminal convictions in deportation proceedings. The petitioner's contention that he had not been convicted of a "trafficking" or "aggravated felony" offense was incorrect based on the definitions of those terms. The petitioner also did not show eligibility for discretionary relief because he had entered as a visitor but remained longer than permitted.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    ____________________
    No. 95-1058
    NABOR JESUS SANTA USUGA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
    Respondent.
    ____________________
    ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER
    OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    ____________________
    Before
    Torruella, Chief Judge,
    ___________
    Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
    ______________
    ____________________

    Frank M. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Alexander H. Shap


    _______________
    _________________
    and Robert Kendall, Jr., Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigati
    ___________________
    Department of Justice, Civil Division, on Respondent's Opposition
    Stay of Deportation.

    ____________________
    April 13, 1995
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________
    stay

    of

    judicial

    We vacate

    deportation and
    review because

    relief in this court.


    The

    record

    deportation

    While petitioner now


    immigration

    deny

    petitioner is

    the
    denial

    Board
    of

    G. L. ch. 278,

    1995

    the petition

    for

    not entitled

    claims that

    fully

    to any

    supported

    relief from
    he was not

    consequences of admitting

    he argues that those


    Mass.

    summarily

    January 17,

    Loc. R. 27.1.

    before

    order and

    this court's

    the

    deportation.
    warned of

    the

    sufficient facts, and

    convictions are therefore invalid under


    29D, see Commonwealth v. Mahadeo, 397
    ___ _______________________

    Mass. 314 (1986), petitioner

    may not collaterally attack his

    criminal

    the

    convictions

    proceedings.

    in

    that he has not

    "trafficking" offense

    incorrect

    of

    deportation

    Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992).


    ______________

    Petitioner's contention
    of

    context

    and

    ignores

    or

    the

    an

    United States v. Forbes,


    ________________________

    "aggravated felony"

    definitions of

    United States v. Rodriguez, 26


    ___________________________

    F.3d 4, 6

    16 F.3d

    been convicted

    1294,

    those

    is

    terms.

    (1st Cir.

    1994);

    1300-01 (1st

    Cir.

    1994); Amaral v. INS, 977 F.2d 33, 35-36 (1st Cir. 1992).
    _____________
    Nor
    relief.

    has petitioner shown

    eligibility for discretionary

    Michelson v. INS, 897 F.2d 465, 469 (10th Cir. 1990)


    ________________

    (alien, who entered


    permitted,

    was

    residence"

    and

    not

    as a visitor,
    "lawfully

    therefore

    was

    relief).

    -2-

    but remained longer


    admitted

    not eligible

    for
    for

    than

    permanent
    212(c)

    The petition for judicial review is summarily denied.

    -3-

    You might also like