Siskind Susser

Green Card LotteryABCs of ImmigrationHiring A LawyerHealth Care Info CenterImmigration SitesFashion, Arts & / Sports Newsletter

Siskind Immigration Bulletin Request Consultation Ask Visalaw Client Login
About the Firm
Our Offices
Our Team
In the News
Practice Areas and Services
Scheduling a Consultation
ABCs of Immigration
Requests For Proposals
Press Room


Immigration Forms
Government Processing Times
State Department Visa Bulletin
Siskind's Immigration Professional
Working in America
Washington Updates
Publications
The Visalaw Blog

MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION
LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION


LAUNCH CHAT

< back

 

NEWS FROM THE COURTS

Mohammed v. Reno, Second Circuit

Haniff Mohammed, a citizen of Trinidad and permanent resident of the US, was found guilty of possession of stolen property in New York in September 1997. He was sentenced to two to four years. The INS placed him in proceedings, and an immigration judge found him removable, a finding the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Mohammed filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and while it was pending, the judge issued an order staying his removal from the US. Ultimately, the judge denied the petition but continued the stay.  Mohammed then appealed to the Second Circuit. The government also filed a motion seeking to have the stay lifted.

In support of this motion, the government argued that sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibiting courts from enjoining the removal of people subject to a final order of removal also prohibited courts from issuing a stay.  Mohammed argued that if the law had been meant to refer to stays, which are simply a postponement, in addition to injunctions, which permanently prevent the enjoined action, it would have specified so. The court agreed with Mohammed, finding that in many other sections of the INA, Congress did refer to both injunctions and stays. 

However, despite ruling in his favor on the general issue of whether a stay could be issued, the court found that Mohammed did not meet the requirements for obtaining a stay, primarily because he could not show that he was likely to win the appeal on the merits.  Therefore, the court revoked the stay.

The opinion is available online at http://laws.findlaw.com/2nd/022443.html.

*********

In re Elgendi, Board of Immigration Appeals

Nabil Elgendi, a citizen of Egypt and permanent resident of the US, was twice convicted of marijuana possession. Both convictions were misdemeanors in New York. Based on these convictions, the INS placed Elgendi in deportation proceedings. According to the INS, the offenses were drug trafficking offenses and therefore aggravated felonies. An immigration judge agreed, and ordered Elgendi deported.  Elgendi appealed.

Earlier this year the Board ruled that whether a state drug offense would be considered an aggravated felony is to be determined by examining how the relevant federal court of appeals treats them.  In this case, the court is the Second Circuit, which has held that to be a drug trafficking offense, the crime must be punishable under the US Controlled Substances Act and be a felony. While marijuana possession is punishable under federal law, these convictions were not felonies, and thus cannot be used as the basis for deportation. Therefore, the Board remanded the case to the immigration judge for a new decision.

The opinion is available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/bia/Decisions/Revdec/pdfDEC/3482.pdf.

< BackIndex | Next >

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.

Siskind Susser Bland
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 38119
T. 800-343-4890 or 901-682-6455
F. 901-682-6394
Email: info@visalaw.com

Home | Immigration Bulletin | Green Card Lottery Center | ABCs of Immigration | Hiring A Lawyer
Hot Topics | Health Care Info Center | Immigration Sites | Search



This is an advertisement. Certification as an Immigration Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee. Siskind Susser Bland limits its practice strictly to immigration law, a Federal practice area, and we do not claim expertise in the laws of states other than where our attorneys are licensed. Siskind Susser Bland does not retain clients on the strength of advertising materials alone but only after following our own engagement procedures (e.g. interviews, conflict checks, retainer agreements). The information contained on this site is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide solutions to individual problems. Readers are cautioned not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel before relying on information on this site. Siskind Susser Bland and its advertisers are independent of each other and advertisers on this site are not being endorsed by Siskind Susser Bland by virtue of the fact that they appear on this page. Site is maintained by Siskind Susser Bland's Memphis, TN office and overseen by Gregory Siskind. Copyright © 2003-2006 Siskind Susser Bland. All rights reserved.