Returning to logic and uniformity by returning to the INA
By Andrew R. Arthur on October 30, 2019
On October 25, 2019, Attorney General (AG) William Barr issued a decision in Matter of Thomas and Matter of Thompson, which will return logic, order, and consistency to assessments by immigration judges (IJs) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of their review of "state-court orders that modify, clarify, or otherwise alter a criminal alien's sentence". Pursuant to that decision, such orders will only have an effect on immigration proceedings, benefits, and relief if they are "based on a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceeding", and not if they are "based on reasons unrelated to the merits of the underlying criminal proceeding, such as rehabilitation or the avoidance of immigration consequences."
Some explanation is necessary to frame that decision. Although immigration law is uniquely the province of the federal government, charges in removal proceedings are often premised on state court criminal convictions. For example, section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) renders removable any alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony after admission. Included in the aggravated felony definition at section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA is "a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year." This applies to not only federal criminal convictions, but also crimes under state law as well.
https://cis.org/Arthur/AG-Issues-Guidelines-State-CriminalSentence-Modifications
