WITHDRAWING A PLEA DEAL

           Under California law, a non-citizen who got a conviction based on a plea deal, may, after completing his sentence, ask the criminal court to vacate the conviction and let them withdraw the plea deal – if they can prove that at the time of the conviction they (the non-citizen) did not completely understand the immigration consequences of the conviction.

           SOUNDS GOOD.

           However, there is a risk: after withdrawing a plea deal, the original criminal charge still stands. This is not cancelled, and the prosecutor may renew the original criminal case against the non-citizen. The risk: a more severe punishment.

EXPUNGEMENT? PARDON?

           Many states have a REMEDY called EXPUNGEMENT. The meaning of the word is “wipe out” or “clear up”. It means that a convicted person, after completing the punishment imposed, may request the court to expunge or wipe out the conviction. This may be very useful under State Law, removing the stain of the conviction from the person’s record. But for Immigration Law – which is Federal Law – this has no effect.

           If you are asked on an Immigration Form whether you have ever been convicted, you must mention even the expunged conviction. If you don’t, you will be accused of lying and will be denied your application.

           It seems that sometimes even an official PARDON from the Governor of your State, would not be respected by the Federal Immigration Service.

HOW TO COUNT TO $10,000

           If a non-citizen is convicted of a crime involved with fraud or deceit and the loss to the victim is more than $10,000, they are subject to deportation and are not eligible for the different remedies usually available to non-citizens in removal proceedings.

           What makes up the amount of $10,000? The total harm caused. If there were several victims, the Immigration Judge will not look at the loss that each victim suffered separately, but will add it all up. If there was more than a single participant in the fraud, the Immigration Judge will not divide the total loss by all Partners in crime, but will relate the total to the non-citizen.

ENCOURAGING AND INDUCING

           The Immigration Law makes it a crime to “encourage and induce” illegal immigration to the U.S. This raises the question whether turning spoken words into a crime does not clash with the First Amendment of the constitution of the U.S. which guarantees the right of “free speech”.

           Recently, the Supreme Court of the U.S. dealt with this issue and decided – in a very specific case – that there is no problem.

           A man in California by the name of Hansen, advertised that he could obtain U.S. citizenship for non-citizens by arranging for “adult adoptions”. (Of course, there is NO SUCH THING.) But 450 non-citizens were fooled by him, to pay him large sums of money – and when he did not deliver on his promises – he advised them to stay in the U.S.

_____He was charged in California with “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration to the U.S. In his first trial, he was convicted. In his appeal to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the conviction was overturned. The government appealed to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. This court restored the conviction.

           The present opinion is that the Supreme Court’s decision is “narrow,” applicable only to circumstances similar to the Hansen case, which was involved with massive fraud. Meaning: if you tell your niece

“come to the U.S. on your visitor’s visa and later you’ll find a way to