Podcasts about esquivel quintana

Guardian article on HondurasLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (U.S. June 28, 2024)deference to agencies; APA; Chevron; star decisis  Santiago Lopez v. Garland, No. 23-2081 (7th Cir. June 24, 2024)non-LPR cancellation of removal; Wilkinson; discretionary determination; procedural vs. substantive challenge; timelines of deficient NTA challenge  Manzano v. Garland, No. 22-704 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024)nexus; Jehovah's Witnesses; religion; one central reason; extortion-plus; 18th Street Gang; El Salvador Leon Perez v. Garland, No. 23-204 (9th Cir. June 28, 2024)attempted lewdness with a child under the age of 14 in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 193.330, 201.230(2); sexual abuse of a minor and attempt aggravated felony; Medina-Villa; Esquivel-Quintana; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2702(a) (third circuit) Cordero-Garcia v. Garland, No. 19-72779 (9th Cir. June 27, 2024)aggravated felony relating to obstruction of justice; INA § 101(a)(43)(S); Cal. Penal Code § 136.1(b)(1); Pugin; mens rea and related statutes; specific intent; relating toSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

Argueta-Hernandez v. Garland, No. 22-60307 (5th Cir. Dec. 5, 2023)untimely petition for review; withholding; final order; Bhaktibhai-Patel; Nasrallah; panel rehearing; claims processing rule; Santos-Zacaria; death threats alone; one central reason; a reason; nexus; government says leave country; willful blindness; MS-13; El Salvador; Villarreal Singh Bhagtana v. Garland, No. 20-1673 (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2023) reasonable relocation; DHS burden; Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”); Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“Mann”) Party; India United States v. Chaires, No. 20-4162 (2d Cir. Dec. 7, 2023)Minter; N.Y. Penal Law § 220.39(1); cocaine isomer; controlled substance offense; failure to argue below; categorical approach Aguilar-Sanchez v. Garland, No. 22-3598 (8th Cir. Dec. 4, 2023)sexual abuse of a minor aggravated felony: conduct and mens rea; Esquivel-Quintana; Minn. Stat. § 609.324, subd. 1(b)(3); Matter of Rodriguez-Rodriguez Mwendapeke v. Garland, No. 22-2383 (7th Cir. Dec. 7, 2023)complicity to robbery in the first degree in violation of KY. Rev. Stat. §§ 502.020 & 515.020, 515.020; generic definition of aiding and abetting; act through omission; verbal aiding and abetting; violent force; Taylor Sebastian-Sebastian v. Garland, No. 23-0267 (6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2023)nexus; inextricably intertwined; mixed motive; Chuj women unable to leave; witches; humanitarian asylum; Guatemala Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024 Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

[3:11] Matter of A-C-A-A-, 28 I&N Dec. 351 (A.G. 2021)asylum; particular social group; DHS stipulations [7:37] Matter of Aguilar-Barajas, 28 I&N Dec. 354 (BIA 2021)aggravated statutory rape; Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-506(c); crime of child abuse under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i); Esquivel-Quintana [15:27] Marinelarena v. Garland, No. 14-72003 (9th Cir. July 26, 2021)Cal. Pen. Code § 182; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11352(a); divisibility; burdens; Pereida  [22:06] Estella Orellana v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 20-16092 (9th Cir. July 28, 2021)naturalization; INA § 101(a)(43)(M)(i) aggravated felony; + $10,000; Cal Pen. Code § 550(b)(3); insurance fraud; Harvey waiver; motion to dismiss [30:55] Galvan v. Garland, No. 20-1485 (4th Cir. July 27, 2021)jurisdiction; discretion; non-LPR cancellation of removal; INA § 240A(b); exceptional and extremely unusual hardship [36:23] Mencia-Medina v. Garland, No. 20-1724 (8th Cir. July 29, 2021)issue exhaustion; VAWA cancellation of removal; BIA factfinding; discretionary determinations  [43:28] Vazquez-Guerra v. Garland, No. 18-60828 (5th Cir. July 29, 2021)family-based particular social group; nexus; one central reason; nexus for withholding of removal; Mexico [47:38] Singh v. Garland, No. 17-2368 (2d Cir. July 28, 2021)adverse credibility; inconsistency; omission; Sikh; Shiromani Akali Da Amritsar (SADA); India  [53:50] Omowole v. Garland, No. 20-2285 (7th Cir. July 29, 2021)credibility; fraud; sham marriage*Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.www.kktplaw.com/Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwisewww.docketwise.com/immigration-review"Modern immigration software & case management"*Want to become a patron of Immigration Review? Check out our Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview *CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: "Immigration Review Podcast" or @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewDISCLAIMER: 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.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/immigrationreview)

On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions. In 2009, Juan Esquivel-Quintana, who was then 21, pleaded no-contest to a California statutory rape offense after engaging in consensual sex with a 17-year old. California criminalizes “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator,” and for this purpose considers anyone under the age of 18 to be a minor. The Department of Homeland Security then initiated removal proceedings against Esquivel-Quintana under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows for the removal of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony, including “sexual abuse of a minor”--though it does not define that phrase. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Esquivel-Quintana’s appeal, concluding that the age difference between Esquivel-Quintana and the minor was sufficiently meaningful for their sexual encounter to qualify as abuse of a minor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, deferring to the BIA’s interpretation, denied Esquivel-Quintana’s petition for further review. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether a conviction under a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old qualifies as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court held that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Because the California statute of conviction did not fall categorically within that generic federal definition, Esquivel-Quintana’s conviction was not an aggravated felony under the INA. All other members joined in Justice Thomas’s opinion except Justice Gorsuch, who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- To discuss the case, we have Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was used as grounds for the deportation of Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a permanent resident admitted to the U.S. in 2000, after he pled guilty to a California statute in 2009, making sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger than the perpetrator a misdemeanor or felony. After the California ruling, Esquivel-Quintana moved to Michigan where the Department of Homeland Security used INA to remove him from the country. INA states that a non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony (ex: sexual abuse of a minor) may be removed from the United States. An immigration judge authorized Esquivel-Quintana’s removal from the country after finding him guilty of sexual abuse of a minor. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the decision without looking at the individual facts of the case; and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the BIA’s decision, establishing that BIA should be afforded deference considering an ambiguous statute under Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Additionally, BIA found that the rule of lenity, which favors defendants in the face of ambiguous statutes, did not apply. -- Vikrant Reddy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute, discussed the potential impact of the recent Supreme Court ruling and the main question of the case: whether a California statute’s “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” should be considered an aggravated felony (i.e. “sexual abuse of a minor”) under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and therefore, require mandatory removal. -- Featuring: Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute.

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced an abrupt about-face on voting rights, essentially walking away from a lawsuit against a harsh voter-ID law in Texas. We discuss the reversal and its implications with Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She was one of the lawyers in the strange position of arguing the case in court this week, the day after the DOJ reversed course. We also sit down with Jeffrey Fisher, who argued an important immigration-related case at the Supreme Court his week. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions asks whether a legal immigrant can be deported for something that counts as a serious crime in some states, but not others. It also previews a question likely to play a big role in Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings: how much deference courts should give federal agencies when interpreting the meaning of laws. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus. And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday, the Department of Justice announced an abrupt about-face on voting rights, essentially walking away from a lawsuit against a harsh voter-ID law in Texas. We discuss the reversal and its implications with Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She was one of the lawyers in the strange position of arguing the case in court this week, the day after the DOJ reversed course. We also sit down with Jeffrey Fisher, who argued an important immigration-related case at the Supreme Court his week. Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions asks whether a legal immigrant can be deported for something that counts as a serious crime in some states, but not others. It also previews a question likely to play a big role in Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings: how much deference courts should give federal agencies when interpreting the meaning of laws. Amicus is brought to you by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses. Get $50 toward any mattress purchase by going to Casper.com/amicusand using the promo code amicus. And by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions | 02/27/17 | Docket #: 16-54