In the wake of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) heightened its commitment to the removal of non-citizens. As the culture of criminalization of immigrants expanded, so did the government's definition of a removable offense, or "aggravated felony." Under current immigration law, longtime legal residents are mandatorialy deported for relatively minor crimes such as shoplifting. The law leaves little room for judges to exercise their discretion and consider an individual's particular circumstances. NIJC's impact litigation has attempted to limit the interpretation of the aggravated felony definition and reduce the immigration effects of minor criminal convictions.

Ali v. Achim - This case questions whether a conviction for a non-aggravated felony should bar the client from applying for permanent residence as an asylee or withholding of removal.

Fenandez, et. al. v. Gonzales - This case argues that a second drug possession offense is not an aggravated felony under the drug trafficking prong, unless recidivism is an element of the offense.

Leocal v. Ashcroft- NIJC submitted an amicus in this case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that the "crime of violence" definition required intentionality, so that "driving while intoxicated" offenses were not crimes of violence and, therefore, not aggravated felonies.

Lopez v. Gonzales - NIJC contributed to an amicus for this case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that simple drug possession offenses (felonies under state law) are not aggravated felonies.

Scucz-Toldy v. Gonzales - The court rejected the attempt by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use unproven facts from a criminal indictment to make a determination of aggravated felony. 

Outside Resources:

New York State Defenders Association