Mr. Parada’s client was facing deportation, or removal, after he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of assault of a family member. He applied for cancellation of his removal, but this application and his alternative request for voluntary departure were denied by an immigration judge on April 27, 2011, according to appeals decision document. The man, with the assistance of Mr. Parada, appealed that denial on grounds that the immigration judge did not properly evaluate the circumstances of his case when making the decision. The Board of Immigration Appeals ultimately ruled that the previous judge’s denials be remanded, giving Mr. Parada’s client another opportunity to provide further evidence and challenge his deportation.
According to the decision document, the assault charge of which the man was convicted was a class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year in prison. The argument presented by Mr. Parada was that the conviction was for simple assault, which is generally not considered a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT). (Committing a CIMT can be grounds for deportation in the United States, according to 8 USC §1227 (a)(2). Assault can become a CIMT when the offense involves certain aggravating factors that show the perpetrator displayed “moral depravity.” Those factors can include instances where a deadly weapon is used to commit the crime or where the crime causes serious bodily injury on another person who is considered in society as needing special protection.
The Board recognized that a problem occurred in the previous decision made by the immigration judge—the judge had relied on the indictment of Mr. Parada’s client rather than on his actual conviction, which was for a lesser charge. The decision document outlines the situation. The man was originally charged with aggravated assault, specifically for allegations that he intentionally caused bodily injury to a person he was dating with the use of a deadly weapon. Yet, because the man actually pleaded guilty to a lesser crime and was convicted for that crime (which was not a CIMT), he should not have been considered to have committed a CIMT (something the previous judge had done).
Mr. Parada was able to provide a convincing argument on behalf of his client, showing that his client may be eligible to seek cancellation of removal. People who are facing deportation either because their case is currently in immigration court or because they need to appeal a judge’s decision, will need a knowledgeable attorney to represent them. They will need an attorney who fully thoroughly understands immigration law and how to use it for his clients’ defense. At the Law Office of Tony E. Parada, clients can benefit from the attorney’s extensive experience in this area of the law. He has represented hundreds of individuals in their deportations and deportations bond proceedings and has even helped hundreds of people obtain their permanent residence and citizenship. For more information about the skilled attorney and his firm, visit http://www.tonyparadalaw.com.