Attorney Vikram Ketty Badrinath's Legal Cases

Immigration

Matter of DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, 26 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 2014)

Sep 18, 2014

OUTCOME:

For purposes of section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration & Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), the phrase "a single offense involving possession for one's own use of thirty gram ... s or less of marijuana" calls for a circumstance-specific inquiry into the character of the alien's unlawful conduct on a single occasion, not a categorical inquiry into the elements of single statutory crime. Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S.C.t 1678 (2013), distinguished. Matter of Davey, 26 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2012), reaffirmed.

Immigration

Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey (en banc)

Jan 01, 2008

OUTCOME: Petition Granted

An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered Estrada-Espinoza deported for a criminal conviction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, concluding ... that the Immigration Judge and the BIA erred in construing Estrada-Espinoza's criminal conviction as an "aggravated felony," without any relief from removal proceedings.

Immigration

Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik

May 30, 2002

OUTCOME:

In March 2000, Armendariz filed a habeas petition with the district court. See INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001) (holding that neither AEDPA nor IIRIRA repealed ... habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241). He argued that AEDPA § 440(d) is inapplicable to his deportation proceedings. Alternatively, he claimed that § 440(d) violates the Equal Protection Clause. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the petition based on his conclusion that Armendariz's deportation proceedings commenced with the service, not with the filing, of the OSC. Since the INS served the OSC two days before the enactment of AEDPA, the magistrate concluded that § 440(d) was inapplicable and thus he was eligible to seek a § 212(c) waiver. The magistrate declined to address Armendariz's contention that § 440(d) violates equal protection. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation without comment. The INS noted a timely appeal.

Immigration

Angulo-Dominguez v. Ashcroft

May 21, 2002

OUTCOME: Petition Granted and Remanded

This case concerns the retroactive application of the Immigration Act of 1990 (“IMMACT”), which amended former § 212(c) to provide that “an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony and has ... served a term of imprisonment of at least 5 years” shall not be eligible for a discretionary waiver under § 212(c). Pub.L. No. 101-649, § 511(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5052. Both St. Cyr and the case at issue, however, concern eligibility for relief pursuant to § 212(c) where the conviction at issue predates the disqualifying enactment. ...Thus, Angulo-Dominguez would have been eligible for discretionary relief at the time he entered his guilty plea in 1990. With that in mind, a determination is required whether the application of IMMACT to Angulo-Dominguez has an impermissibly retroactive effect.

Vikram Ketty Badrinath's Legal Cases (4)

Matter of DOMINGUEZ-RODRIGUEZ, 26 I&N Dec. 408 (BIA 2014)

Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey (en banc)

Armendariz-Montoya v. Sonchik

Angulo-Dominguez v. Ashcroft