Robert Richard Thornton - Voice For The Defense Online

J .(BIA 1962). However, the most recent INSdecisions hold that at least in some cases,reckless conduct may rise to the level ofmoral turpitude. Matter of Woj&ow, 18I&N Dec. 111 (BIA 1981) [manslaughter];Matter ofMedina, 15 I&N Dec. 611,613(BIA 1976) [aggravated assault with adeadly weapon]. Therefore a conviction inthis case could trigger the deportation orexclusion consequences.D. A "Recommendation" AgainstDeportation by this Court would be bindingon the Immigration Service withrespect to this conviction. See Velez-Lm~to v. INS, 463 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir.1972); Rasntussen v. Robinson, 163 F.2d732 (3d Cir. 1947) [exclusion]. It does notprevent deportation or exclusion on anyother basis. See Mutter of Parodi, 17 I&NDec. 608 (BIA 1980); Kesselbrenner &Rosenherg, IMMIORATION LAW &CRIMES, Section 10.3 (Clark BoardmanCo. 1984). If Defendant is, or becomes,subject to those penalties for some otherconduct, the Immigration Service would befree to proceed against him despite thisCourt's recommendation.E. The additional punishments whichDefendant may incur if this Court denieshis Motion are severe:(1) This conviction alone would makehim excludable, i.e., ifhe leaves the US.temporarily he could be refused the rightto return here. 8 USC Section 1182(a)(9).(2) This conviction, plus any other convictionfor a crime of moral turpitude,would make him subject to deportation,even if he was convicted of a Class C misdemeanortheft ten years fromnow. 8 USCSection 1252(a)(4).(3) This conviction alone would likelydelay his opportunity to become a US.citizen for five years. 8 USC Section1427(a)(3) [naturalization requires fiveyears of good moral character]; 8 USCSection 1101(f) [conviction of such anoffense inconsistent with good moralcharacterJ.F. Granting this Motion would ensurethat the punishments resulting from thisprosecution by the State of Texas are lit-ed to the penalties envisioned by StateLaw. It would also help ensure the Defendant'sability to make restitution; if theDefendant is deported to Korea, he willhave no financial means to make restitutionand the State would have no effectivelegal means to enforce such restitution.Respectfully submitted, George, 341 US. 223 (1951). [An alien wouldalso be subiect * to dewaation if he was convictedat any time afler entry of two crimes involv-- tne - moral tumiilude. not arisin~ - out of a sinde -- -- ~ncident, rcgirdicsf uf the sentencc imposeJ.IAtrorne~ forThcrcare few exccplions or waivcrs for aliensx:**$*subject to deportati6nupon these grounds; I donot how of any that would apply to Mr.Appendix IRe conclusion I reachis that if there is a fdFebruary 19, 1985conviction in this case and asentenceof at leastone year is imposed, he will he deportedHon.whether or not thesentenceis probated. He willJudge for the Criminal District Court not be eligible for the privilege of voluntaryfor Harris County, Texasdeparture, under which he could leave the US.301 San Jacinto Street on his own, because the conviction would pre-Houston, Texasventhimfmm establishing "gwd moral charactei'as it is defined under the immigration hws.Re: State vs.8 USC Sec. 1101(9(3). Good moral characteris a prerequisite to receiving voluntary depar-Dear Judze -ture. Therefore, affer a deportation hearing, heAs I limit my practice to immigration and na- would be Iteld in INS cus~dy until the agencytionc~litv law and related fields, the attorncy fnr ~rranged his rcturn flight to his own country;the defendant has asked me to describe to the he would have to arrange for friends to sell hisCourt why it would be important toMr. belongings here and pack his hags for him; hethat he receive deferred adjudication instead of wonld not be able to fish thecurrent academicprobation, assuming that he pleads guilry to the term.charge ngainst him.ficlusion as a consequence of conviction.7he kc~s us erolained to me.A sineleconv~ction - for acrime of moral tur-I have not mct personally with the defcndant, pitudc (except certain misdemeanurs nndhut ondcrst~ml that he has hen i~~divted fur iuvcniic oftenscs) would also nrakc an alicn %x-Credit Card Abuse, a third degree felony; that hiable" from the U.S. 8 USC Sec. 1 l82(a)(9).the ounishment allowed bv the Penal Code That is, Mr. w o u l d not be eligible towonld range from two to ten years imprison- return to this country for the rest of his life,men1 with a fine UD to $5.000: and that Mr. unless he ~nalified for a waiver or exceptionhas no prm criminal record. which at this time appears unavailable. For aI also understand, from looking at a copy of relatively young person, to be permanentlythe visa in his passport, that he was admitted banned from entering any one country may beto the United States in 1983 as an "M-1" stu- considered a fairly serious penalty.dent, which is an imn~igmtion category for studentsat technical institutes and vocationalschools, and that he hopes to obtain a degreehere before returning to his own country.As the Court well knows, the crucial differencebetween deferred adjudication and probationunder Texas law is that the former doesnot entail a conviction. This difference is alsorecoenized under the federal immip.rar~onlaws.and > has an important effect 6r the aliendefendant.An alien already in the unitedstates who isconvicted of a crime"invo1ving mod turpitude"becomes subject to deportation if the crime wascommitted within five years affer his entry andhe is sentenced to a year or more imprisonment-whether or not that sentence is probated. SeeSection 2411a114> of the Immieration &Nation-Section 1%1(a)(4). CreditCard abuse. as it involves an element of fi'audulentconduct, would certainly be considered acrime of moral turpitude. Cf: Jordan v. De-ality Act, 8 ~kP.Other consequences.There are two other consequences of a cnnvictionin this case, whiihdo not depend on thelength of any sentence. As a non-immigrant stu-dent, Mr. n e e d s the permission of INSfor certain matters involving his course ofstudies, such as a transfer from one school toanother. If he has been convicted of a crime,he is less likely to receive that permission, andtherefore his education may be limited. Also,although at this time he is planning to returnto his own country, there is always the possi-hilitv that his nlans mav chanee. If in a fewyears heapplied for permanent residence in theUS.. aconvictionfor this felony would eithermilk; him ineligible, or greatG increase thedifficulty of becoming a resident.Conclusion.It is of course for this Court to decide whatpenalty the Defendant should bear, and the un--continued or1 page 42February 1987 1 VOICE for the Defense 23