Do you or your loved one need legal advice? Call 212-725-6422. Attorneys, click here.

“Particularly Serious Crimes”

The United States, under its international treaty obligations, has long offered protected status to those fleeing persecution abroad in the form of Asylum and Withholding of Removal. Historically, only the most serious criminal convictions that present actual danger to the community in the United States can bar a person from receiving refuge under the immigration laws. In recent years, the federal government has applied this “particularly serious crime” designation to bar more and more immigrants from protected status, in violation of the laws written by Congress and of international treaties to which the United States is a signatory. IDP actively supports litigants in the Circuit Courts of Appeals contesting “particularly serious crime” determinations that prevent them from obtaining Asylum and Withholding of Removal.

Briefs and Litigation Tools for “Particularly Serious Crime” Cases Before the Agency and Circuit Courts of Appeals

As the government classifies more and more convictions as “particularly serious crimes,” IDP and allies are appearing as amici curiae to educate the federal courts that these applications of immigration laws violate both domestic and international law. These amicus briefs may be useful to those litigating “particularly serious crime” issues before the immigration agencies and federal courts.

Second Circuit

Abankwah v. Holder, No. 14-2146 (pending): This amicus brief argues that the federal government’s application of the “particularly serious crime” bar to Ms. Abankwah’s fraud offense conflicts with the treaty obligations of the United States under United Nations Refugee Conventions because it applies to an offense that is not sufficiently grave and because it fails to conduct an assessment of current dangerousness.

  • Brief of amicus curiae, including IDP, submitted in Abankwah v. Lynch (November 2014) (prepared and submitted by Nancy Morawetz, Antonia House, and Tianyin Luo of NYU Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic)

Vaskovska v. Lynch, Nos. 14-4382, 15-145, 15-265 (pending): This amicus brief argues that the federal government’s application of the “particularly serious crime” bar to Ms. Vaskovska’s simple drug possession offense conflicts with the treaty obligations of the United States under United Nations Refugee Conventions because it applies to an offense that is not sufficiently grave and because it fails to conduct an assessment of current dangerousness.

  • Brief of amicus curiae, including IDP, submitted in Vaskovska v. Lynch (May 2015) (prepared and submitted by Philip L. Torrey of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program)

Ninth Circuit

Hernandez v. Lynch, No. 14-74033 (pending): This amicus brief argues that the federal government’s application of the “particularly serious crime” bar to Mr. Hernandez conflicts with the treaty obligations of the United States under United Nations Refugee Conventions because it applies to an offense that is not sufficiently grave and because it fails to conduct an assessment of current dangerousness. Mr. Hernandez’s offense of conviction was for driving under the influence where no person or property were injured.

  • Brief of amicus curiae, including IDP, submitted in Hernandez v. Lynch (September 2015) (prepared and submitted by Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild)
Search