Podcast appearances and mentions of Barton V Barr

Episode 128 - Interview with NYU SOL Prof. Nancy Morawetz analyzing the SCOTUS Decision of Barton v. Barr   ImmigrationLawyersToolbox.com Not Legal Advice. Consult with an Attorney in Private. Results Vary. Attorney Advertisement.

Cases as discussed in order:[01:51] Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020)"rendered inadmissible"; INA § 240A(d)(1)(B); cancellation of removal; stop-time rule[10:36] Peters v. Barr, No. 16-73509 (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2020) adjustment of status; failure to maintain lawful status exception; INA § 245(c)[18:28] Sutarsim v. Barr, No. 18-1937 (1st Cir. May 1, 2020)motion to reopen; changed country conditions; Indonesia; Chinese ethnicity[20:51] Scarlett v. Barr, No. 16-940 (2d Circ. Apr. 28, 2020)asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture; "unable or unwilling"; government officials; Jamaica; gangs[23:58] Guzman-Orellana v. Att’y Gen., No. 19-1793 (3d Cir. Apr. 17, 2020)asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture; particular social group; imputed; El Salvador; gangs; government witness[26:51] Calderon-Rosas v. Att’y Gen., No. 19-2332 (3d Cir. Apr. 27, 2020)motion to reopen; ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice; cancellation of removal[32:18] Perez v. Barr, No. 16-71918 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2020)mental incompetency; attorney's fees[34:05] Banuelos v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2020)Pereira v. Sessions; stop-time rule; notice to appear; cancellation of removal*CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreview*About your host: https://www.kktplaw.com/attorney/gregg-kevin-a/*More episodes at: http://immigrationreview.buzzsprout.com*Featured as Top 15 Immigration Podcasts! https://blog.feedspot.com/immigration_podcasts/DISCLAIMER: Immigration Review is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide specific legal advice. Rather, the Immigration Review podcast offers general information and insights regarding recent immigration cases from publicly available sources. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the podcast host. The Immigration Review podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state. MUSIC CREDITS: "Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

On April 23, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On April 23, 2020, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.The opinion was written by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Today's episode breaks down two significant Supreme Court decisions released this week, including Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). We break down each one and explain the short- and long-term implications. First, though, it's time for a bit of Andrew Was Right and Andrew Was Wrong. The good news: Texas has changed its Executive Order formerly prohibiting abortions and has now affirmed in open court that it will not use the COVID-19 pandemic as pretext for denying reproductive health rights! Best of all, this is exactly the result we've been telling you would happen over the past few weeks -- even though it took us a bit to get there. But also Andrew Was Wrong? Yeah, Andrew also has a correction to issue regarding lifetime judicial appointments in Episode 378. Then, it's time for the main segment in which we break down the Supreme Court's completely predicable -- and utterly unjustifiable -- 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr to restrict the remedies available to legal aliens to challenge removal decisions. Find out why Neil Gorsuch openly admits that the interpretation he votes for makes no sense, textually. (Hint: it's because these justices don't care about jurisprudence, just about outcomes.) After that, we tackle a second key Supreme Court decision that came out this week, Ramos v. Louisiana, in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury was incorporated to the states. Find out why this case presents a "stare decisis trap" for the Court's liberal justices and how that explains this unique 6-3 alignment with Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor in dissent (!) Then, of course, it's time for an all-new Thomas (and Devin) Take the Bar Exam, in which we preview next week's special guest and they try and break down a criminal question about football. You won't want to miss it! Patreon Bonuses Our next LIVE Q&A is scheduled for Friday, May 1, at 8 pm Eastern / 5 pm Pacific, and you can post and vote on which questions you want to see answered! And don't forget that we've released Law’d Awful Movies #39, Class Action, starring Gene Hackman and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, and featuring guest performer Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Appearances Andrew was just a guest on Episode 375 of the Scathing Atheist, breaking down the latest legal nonsense from Kansas. And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, event, or in front of your group, please drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links For a sneak peek at next week's guest, check out the Legal Eagle YouTube channel. Click here to read the Court's decisions in Barton v. Barr (involving immigration) and Ramos v. Louisiana (involving unanimous jury verdicts). In the A segment, we discuss the hilariously-secretive announcement of GA-15, the text of GA-15 itself, and quote extensively from the reply brief filed by Texas in Judge Yeakel's court (W.D. Tex.). Our previous immigration discussions were in Episodes 301 and 314. We talked about how subsection d(1)(B) was buried on page 596 of the 750-page Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, and also broke down the text of both 8 U.S.C. § 1229b and 8 U.S.C. § 1282. Finally, please read this amazing piece by Linda Greenhouse in the New York Times analyzing the Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana. -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don’t forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -Remember to check out our YouTube Channel  for Opening Arguments: The Briefs and other specials! -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

Ok, here's the situation.  Brett went away on a weekend's vacation, so the first half of this is talking about the Star Wars Theme Park at Disney World.  Around the (15:00) mark, the episode turns to Barton v. Barr and Kansas v. Garcia, which both discuss judicial interpretation of immigration statutes.  This one is heavy on nonsense, so we'll tighten things up next week.

On Nov. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during the commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.The Eleventh Circuit recognized that the federal circuit courts of appeals have split on the issue, however, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari to address whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Associate Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Nov. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Barton v. Barr, a case involving a dispute over whether, for the purposes of the “stop-time rule,” a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible”. The stop-time rule affects the discretion afforded the U.S. Attorney General to cancel the removal from the United States of a lawful permanent resident who has resided in the U.S. continuously for 7 years. Under the stop-time rule, the requisite continuous residence terminates once the alien commits any of a certain number of offenses that render the alien inadmissible to (or removable from) the United States under federal law. Thus, committing a listed offense may cause an alien to fall short of the continuous 7-year residence requirement and thereby become ineligible for cancellation of removal.Andre Martello Barton, after receiving lawful permanent resident status, was convicted in 1996 on three counts of aggravated assault, one count of criminal damage to property, and one count of firearm possession during the commission of a felony, all in violation of state law. In 2007 and 2008, he was also convicted of several state law drug offenses. The federal government then initiated proceedings to remove Barton based on his various convictions. He conceded removability on the basis of his controlled substance and gun possession offenses but applied for cancellation of removal based on continuous residence. The government argued that Barton’s 1996 convictions triggered the stop-time rule, thereby disqualifying him for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge ruled in favor of the government and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. Barton then petitioned for relief from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which rejected his argument that the stop-time rule only applies to aliens seeking admission to the United States, and therefore denied his petition.The Eleventh Circuit recognized that the federal circuit courts of appeals have split on the issue, however, and the Supreme Court ultimately granted certiorari to address whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule.To discuss the case, we have Amy Moore, Associate Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be "render[ed] ... inadmissible" for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(l). https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-725_g314.pdf --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

Barton v. Barr | 11/04/19 | Docket #: 18-725

A case in which the Court held that in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.

A case in which the Court held that in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.

A case in which the Court held that in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.

A case in which the Court held that in determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.