Welcome home Richard!

Barbadian loses deportation appeal in USA

“Richard Carrington petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which dismissed his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) final removal order. For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.”
Carrington is a native and citizen of Barbados. He was admitted to the United States as a Legal Permanent Resident in August 1991. In 1997, he pled guilty to and was convicted of forgery in Pennsylvania state court. He was sentenced to twenty-three months of imprisonment, with immediate parole given at the time of sentencing. In August 2009, the Department of Homeland Security served Carrington with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging him with removability for having committed an aggravated felony, see INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii)], and for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, see INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) [8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii)].

On November 16, 2009, after being afforded two continuances to obtain an attorney or representative of his choosing, the IJ proceeded with Carrington’s hearing and he admitted the allegations in the NTA. The IJ found Carrington removable as charged under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), as defined in INA § 101(a)(43)(R) [8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R)], based on his forgery conviction. However, the IJ found that Carrington was not removable under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Accordingly, the IJ concluded that Carrington was not eligible for discretionary relief from removal and ordered him removed to Barbados.

Carrington timely appealed the decision to the BIA and, on April 12, 2010, the BIA dismissed the appeal, noting that Carrington had not filed any relief applications. The BIA concluded that the IJ was correct in finding that Carrington’s record of conviction for forgery, for which the term of imprisonment was at least one year, constituted an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(R). Carrington has petitioned for review of the BIA’s decision.

(large section removed here to get to the final sentence)

For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Immigration

6 responses to “Welcome home Richard!

  1. what will they think of next

    Sounds like he is a piece of work.

  2. 17242-589-26/7823-54345

    And STRAIGHT to Dodds he should go!

  3. Jack Bowman

    Dear BFP folks,

    I’m not 100 per cent certain (or, to put it another way: I don’t really have a clue) what point you’re making with this piece.

    Who’s the bad guy here? Who or what are we supposed to find disagreeable? Mr. Carrington? The US judicial system? The Department of Homeland Security? Deportation in general? What? It’s not clear.

    The man pleaded/pled guilty to forgery. But what did he forge? Someone else’s signature on a fifty-dollar cheque/check? Or a painting that he then sold to a confused widow for twenty thousand dollars?

    He was sentenced to twenty-three months, which isn’t short, but he got “immediate parole”. What does that mean? That he never served a day in prison?

    The evidence adduced suggests that he wasn’t violent, he wasn’t selling addictive toxins to the feeble of mind, he wasn’t a member of some brutal criminal gang. He wasn’t pimping, raping, robbing banks with weapons, carjacking, mugging, loansharking with menaces, home-breaking or battering. There is no suggestion that he was a fan of the worst band in the history of popular music, Nirvana (and anyone guilty of the latter crime, of course, should be taken outside and beaten with R.E.M albums until it starts to hurt).

    The evidence does say that he was found guilty of “two or more crimes involving moral turpitude” but we have no idea what those crimes are, and on the spectrum of good and evil there is a vast rainbow of grey that can be covered by the term “moral turpitude”.

    Perhaps I’m having an unusually dense day, but I’m just not grasping what point you’re trying to make here.

    Finally, the text you quote says that “Carrington timely appealed the decision to the BIA …”. The main point here, as I’m sure you’d agree, is that “timely” is not an adverb. You can appeal in a timely manner, but you can’t appeal timely. And therefore, pursuant to § 29.7(b)(1)(Z)(ii) [9 U.S.C. § 123.9(c)(2)(A)(iv)], I think I can make a very solid case that the writer of that sentence you be deported forthwith to Poland or England or Germany or Italy or Ireland or Sweden or wherever his family came from. Because one thing his certain: the family of that writer didn’t originate in the United States.

  4. Jack Bowman

    Sorry, I forgot …

    There’s also that primary-school dangling modifier: “On November 16, 2009, after being afforded two continuances to obtain an attorney or representative of his choosing, the IJ proceeded with Carrington’s hearing …”.

    No. Wrong. The IJ did not proceed with Carrington’s hearing after the IJ had been afforded two continuances to obtain an attorney. What they meant: Mr. Carrington was afforded two continuances to obtain an attorney, and then the IJ proceeded with Carrington’s hearing.

    These people should be forced to listen to a Nirvana album for seven straight days.

  5. BFP

    Hi Jack,

    Everything is quoted right from the legal website, so it could be that the US Judge that wrote that statement is not from the USA and has English as a second language.

    As to why we found this event worth printing, that might be another story! 😉

  6. Awadi

    Simple, felony = deportation it is the law