You are here: / Immigration Law
,

MOTHER’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Reversing Family Court, the Second Department determined mother’s motion for findings allowing her child to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS) should have been granted:

… [W]e declare that the child has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a state or juvenile court, and we find that the child is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with one of his parents is not viable due to parental abandonment, and that it would not be in his best interests to return to El Salvador … . Matter of Tommy E. H. (Anonymous) v Silvia C. (Anonymous), 2015 NY Slip Op 09104, 2nd Dept 12-9-15

MONTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES FOR THIS CASE:

SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (MOTHER’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/IMMIGRATION LAW (MOTHER’S MOTION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

, ,

Inaccurate Advice About the Deportation Consequences of a Guilty Plea Constitutes Ineffective Assistance; Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction in this Pre-Padilla Case

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on his motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea) in this pre-Padilla case. Defendant alleged he was told deportation was not likely, or was a “possibility,” when, in fact, deportation was mandatory. That allegation, plus an assertion he would have negotiated a different plea which did not require deportation had he known the actual consequences of his plea, was sufficient to warrant a hearing:

In Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires criminal defense counsel to advise their noncitizen clients about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. However, that decision is not applied retroactively to state court postconviction proceedings … . Since the defendant’s judgment of conviction became final when his time to take an appeal expired—long before Padilla was decided in 2010—Padilla is not applicable here. Therefore, “counsel’s failure to warn a defendant that a guilty plea might lead to removal from the United States” …  does not, in this case, amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, “inaccurate advice about a guilty plea’s immigration consequences constitute[s]” ineffective assistance of counsel … . People v Pinto, 2015 NY Slip Op 08441, 2nd Dept 11-18-15

 

,

Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s motions for the issuance of special findings to enable the child [Jose] to petition for special immigrant juvenile status should have been granted:

… [I]t is declared that Jose … has been legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court, and it is found that Jose …  is unmarried and under 21 years of age, that reunification with one of his parents is not viable due to parental abandonment, and that it would not be in his best interests to return to Honduras, his previous country of nationality or last habitual residence. Matter of Gomez v Sibrian, 2015 NY Slip Op 08165, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

, ,

People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively

The Second Department determined that People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), which requires that defendant’s be informed of the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, would not be applied retroactively:

The defendant’s conviction became final prior to People v Peque (22 NY3d 168), in which the Court of Appeals held that courts were required to advise defendants of the deportation consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant contends that Peque should be applied retroactively. This contention is without merit.

Previously, in Padilla v Kentucky (559 US 356), the United States Supreme Court held that defense counsel were under a duty to advise noncitizen defendants of the deportation risks of their pleas of guilty. It is now settled that the Padilla decision does not apply retroactively in state court postconviction proceedings … . For the same reasons, we decline to give retroactive application to Peque, which, like Padilla, concerns the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty, and “rather than going to the heart of a reliable determination of guilt or innocence, instead concentrates on the defendant’s appreciation of the immigration consequences that may flow from an otherwise proper plea allocution” … . People v Pena, 2015 NY Slip Op 07685, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

,

Parent’s Inability to Pay for Juvenile’s Education Does Not Constitute the Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment Required for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined the motion for a finding that reunification with one or both of petitioner’s parents was not viable (re: an application for special juvenile immigrant status) was properly denied. The relationship with the juvenile’s parents in Guatemala had never broken down due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. The fact that the juvenile’s parents could not afford to pay for the juvenile’s education did not constitute abuse, neglect or abandonment:

Pursuant to 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J) … and 8 CFR 204.11, a “special immigrant” is a resident alien who, inter alia, is under 21 years of age, unmarried, and dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court. Additionally, for a juvenile immigrant to qualify for special juvenile immigrant status, a court must find that reunification of the juvenile with one or both of the juvenile’s parents is not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i]), and that it would not be in the juvenile’s best interests to be returned to his or her native country or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][ii]…).

Here, the record reflects that Jeison was living with both of his parents in Guatemala until March 2012, when, with their consent, he traveled to the United States to escape gang violence and pursue his studies. After his arrival in the United States, Jeison began to reside with the petitioner, who provided him with food, clothing, and shelter, and Jesion remained in frequent contact with his parents. The inability of Jeison’s parents, who live in poverty, to provide him with a college education, or with financial assistance, does not support a finding that his reunification with his parents was not viable due to parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law … . Matter of Jeison P.-C. (Conception P.), 2015 NY Slip Op 07665, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

, ,

Failure to Advise Non-Citizen Defendant of Deportation Consequences of Plea Required Remittal

The Fourth Department noted that the court’s failure to advise the non-citizen defendant of the deportation consequences of his guilty plea required that the case be remitted to afford the defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea:

We agree with defendant, a noncitizen, that County Court failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his felony plea, as required by People v Peque (22 NY3d 168). We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to County Court to afford defendant the opportunity to move to vacate his plea based upon a showing that there is a “reasonable probability” that he would not have pleaded guilty had he known that he faced the risk of being deported as a result of the plea (id. at 176…). People v Traverso, 2015 NY Slip Op 07376, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

, ,

A Defendant’s Status as an Undocumented Alien Cannot Be the Sole Ground for Imposing Incarceration As Opposed to Probation

In a case of first impression, the Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien cannot constitute the sole reason for a sentence of incarceration as opposed to probation. County Court reasoned that as soon as a sentence of probation was imposed upon an undocumented alien, the defendant would be in violation of probation by virtue of his/her undocumented status. Therefore, County Court concluded, a sentence of probation was not available to any undocumented alien. The Second Department disagreed, holding that a defendant’s status as an undocumented alien can be considered in determining the appropriate sentence, but it cannot be the sole ground for imposing a sentence of incarceration. To pre-determine that an undocumented alien is not eligible for probation violates due process and equal protection, constitutional rights which are afforded undocumented aliens:

… [W]e reach two conclusions. First, courts may appropriately consider a defendant’s undocumented immigration status in imposing criminal sentences. The decision to impose or not impose a sentence of probation may legitimately be affected by factors directly related to undocumented status. Those factors include, but are not necessarily limited to, the likelihood of the defendant’s deportation during the probationary period, the defendant’s history, if any, of repeated departures from and illegal reentries into the United States, the presence or absence of family in the United States, the defendant’s employment history, and the defendant’s legal employability. Second, it is impermissible for a sentencing court to refuse to consider a sentence of probation for an undocumented defendant solely on the basis of his or her immigration status. Doing so violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Federal and New York constitutions by treating certain defendants differently from others based upon their undocumented presence in this state. In other words, a defendant’s undocumented immigration status may be a factor a court takes into account in determining whether to include probation as part of a sentence, but such status cannot be the sole factor a court relies upon in denying a probationary sentence and in imposing a term of imprisonment instead. People v Cesar, 2015 NY Slip Op 06252, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

, ,

Pre-“Padilla” Statement by Counsel that Defendant’s Plea to an “Aggravated Felony” Would Not Result in Deportation Justified a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Her Conviction

The Third Department determined defendant was entitled to a hearing on her motion to vacate her conviction.  Defendant alleged she was erroneously told by her attorney (pre “Padilla”) her conviction (for an “aggravated felony”) would not cause her to be deported:

… [D]efendant’s … claim that counsel affirmatively misinformed her about the plea’s deportation consequences is not dependent upon Padilla; rather, it rests upon established law at the time of her plea that defense counsel’s affirmative misrepresentation to a noncitizen regarding the deportation consequences of a contemplated guilty plea constitutes deficient performance so as to satisfy the first prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim … .

In her affidavit in support of the motion, defendant alleged that her counsel advised her that, although immigration authorities would be notified about her guilty plea, “he did not think anything further would happen.” In fact, the crime of rape in the third degree constitutes an “aggravated felony” that results in mandatory deportation (see 8 USC § 1101 [a] [43] [a]; § 1227 [a] [2] [A] [iii]; § 1229b [a] [3]…). Defendant further averred that, had counsel informed her that she was certain to be deported as a result of her guilty plea, she would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial. As defendant sufficiently alleged that counsel provided incorrect information concerning the deportation consequences that would result from her guilty plea and that she was prejudiced as a result thereof, she was entitled to a hearing on this aspect of her CPL 440.10 motion … . People v Ricketts-simpson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05975, 3rd Dept 7-9-15

 

,

New York State Can Issue a License to Practice Law to an Undocumented Immigrant Authorized to Be In the United States by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Policy of the Federal Government

The Second Department, in an extensive, full-fledged opinion (per curiam), dealing with a question of first impression, determined the State of New York could issue a license to practice law to an undocumented immigrant who was qualified for admission to the bar.  The court explained the issues before it as follows:

We are called upon to determine whether an undocumented immigrant, who is authorized to be present in the United States under the auspices of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of the federal government, and who meets the statutory eligibility requirements and the rules of court governing admission to the practice of law in the State of New York, may satisfy the standard of good character and general fitness necessary for admission. We are further called upon to determine whether such an individual is barred from admission to the practice of law by a federal statute, 8 USC § 1621, which generally prohibits the issuance of state professional licenses to undocumented immigrants unless an individual state has enacted legislation affirmatively authorizing the issuance of such licenses. This presents an issue of first impression in New York and, in terms of the applicability of 8 USC § 1621 and its compatibility with the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, an issue of first impression nationwide.

We hold that a narrow reading of 8 USC § 1621(d), so as to require a state legislative enactment to be the sole mechanism by which the State of New York exercises its authority granted in 8 USC § 1621(d) to opt out of the restrictions on the issuance of licenses imposed by 8 USC § 1621(a), unconstitutionally infringes on the sovereign authority of the state to divide power among its three coequal branches of government. Further, we hold, in light of this state’s allocation of authority to the judiciary to regulate the granting of professional licenses to practice law (see Judiciary Law § 53[1]), that the judiciary may exercise its authority as the state sovereign to opt out of the restrictions imposed by section 1621(a) to the limited extent that those restrictions apply to the admission of attorneys to the practice of law in the State of New York. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative. Matter of Application of Cesar Adrian Vargas for Admission to the Bar of the State of New York., 2015 NY Slip Op 04657, 2nd Dept 6-3-15

 

,

Family Court Should Not Have Denied Child’s Motion for the Issuance of an Order Making Specific Findings that Would Allow Her to Petition for Special Juvenile Immigrant Status

The Second Department determined Family Court should not have denied the juvenile’s motion for issuance of an order making specific findings that would allow her to petition the United State Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The court determined the record supported the child’s motion and noted that the Federal government retains control of the immigration determination of whether the child receives SIJS, which cannot be decided by Family Court. The case was remitted to Family Court for a hearing to determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to be returned to El Salvador, and for a new determination on the child’s motion. The Second Department explained the relevant law:

A child may request that the Family Court issue an order making certain specific findings that will enable him or her to petition the USCIS, an agency within the United States Department of Homeland Security, for SIJS … . The findings required to support a petition for SIJS include: (1) the child is under 21 years of age; (2) the child is unmarried; (3) the child is dependent upon a juvenile court or legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of the State or an individual appointed by a State or juvenile court; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the child’s best interests to be returned to his or her country of nationality or country of last habitual residence (see 8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][i], [ii]; 8 CFR 204.11[c]…). Once those specific findings have been issued, the eligible child may seek the consent of “the Secretary of Homeland Security” to receive special immigrant juvenile status (8 USC § 1101[a][27][J][iii]…).

Here, the child is under the age of 21 and unmarried, and has been “legally committed to, or placed under the custody of . . . an individual . . . appointed by a State or juvenile court” within the meaning of 8 USC § 1101(a)(27)(J)(i) … . Further, based upon our independent factual review, we find that the record, which includes a detailed affidavit from the child, fully supports her contention that reunification with her father is not a viable option, due to abandonment … . Matter of Pineda v Diaz, 2015 NY Slip Op 03540, 1st Dept 4-29-15

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy