Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) provides a “way out” for immigrant children who “age out” or over the age of 21. Among the benefits, it allows those who age out to “automatic convert” and “retain” the earlier priority date (i.e., the date immigrant’s petition was “in line” for a visa number) of an “expired” petition.
Nunez-Reyes v. Holder (PUB-eb) newimmigrationcases | July 14, 2011 at 10:10 am | Tags: FFOA, Lujan-Armendariz v. INS | Categories: Published Ninth Circuit | URL: http://wp.me/pD4Uy-2s5 Lujan-state-court conviction for a simple-possession of drugs/expungement/EP The en banc court overrules the equal protection holding in Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000); however, in light of the equities and other considerations, it applies this new rule only prospectively. Since Lujan-Armendariz, the BIA and every sister circuit to have addressed the issue—eight in total —have rejected this Court’s holding in Lujan. This court reverses and holds that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection does not require treating, for immigration purposes, an expunged state conviction of a drug crime the same as a federal drug conviction that has been expunged under the FFOA. The two possible rational bases can be explained as follows: 1.) “Familiar with the operation of the federal criminal justice system, Congress could have thought that aliens whose federal charges are dismissed under the FFOA are unlikely to present a substantial threat of committing subsequent serious crimes. By contrast, Congress may have been unfamiliar with the operation of state schemes that resemble the FFOA. Congress could have worried that state criminal justice systems, under the pressure created by heavy case loads, might permit dangerous offenders to plead down to simple possession charges and take advantage of those state schemes to escape what is considered a conviction under state law. Particularly in view of Congress’s power in immigration matters, it seems plain that rational-basis review is satisfied here.” Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2003) 2.) “Not all states permit expungement. A person convicted in such a state would be ineligible for relief under the immigration laws, whereas a person convicted in a different state would be eligible. Congress reasonably could have concluded that, in the strong interest of uniformity, it would not recognize any state expungements rather than adopt a piecemeal approach.”