Anyone can be a victim of a crime whether you are present in the United States lawfully or not. Unfortunately, many undocumented residents may never report a crime to law enforcement as they are concerned about their immigration status. This not only hurts the victims, but also the community at large as the criminal offender remains on the streets. To help solve this issue, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) can approve a special type of visa for crime victims.

The Administrative Stay of Removal for U Nonimmigrant Status (known as the U-Visa) is available for undocumented immigrants who were the victims of sexual assault or other violent crimes. This visa grants you amnesty so that you can properly seek help from law enforcement without fear of deportation. This is important for many reasons. First, many crime victims live in fear of the perpetrator, especially in cases of domestic violence. Law enforcement can provide protection from the offender, help you seek a protection order, or keep the offender behind bars for your safety.

In addition, if you were deported, you would not be able to assist law enforcement during the criminal process. If you agree to cooperate with law enforcement to assist with the prosecution, you can be eligible for a U-Visa. In addition, you may obtain visas for your immediate family members so that they can also remain in the U.S. with you.

While the U-Visa is extremely beneficial to immigrant victims of crime and their families, the process of applying and obtaining the visa can be complex. While law enforcement is supposed to help you with this process, they are often busy and so your visa can be substantially delayed. It is always a good idea to discuss your situation with an experienced immigration attorney who can help you through every step of the process.

Call a NJ and NY Immigration Attorney for More Information

If you believe you may be qualified for a U-Visa or if you need help with a pending application, your first call should be to the office of Ronald P. Mondello, Esq. Attorney at Law. Being a crime victim can be emotional and stressful in itself and we provide the highest quality of assistance so that you can focus on your personal recovery from your experience. We also handle a wide range of immigration matters for individuals throughout New Jersey and New York. If you would like more information about how we can help you, please call or contact us online today.

The Supreme Court released an important decision earlier this spring reinforcing an earlier holding that a key sentencing law phrase is unconstitutional. Part of a federal law that is intended to keep people convicted of repeated violent crimes in prison longer was struck down.

In Welch v. United States, the Court declared that a sentencing enhancement applied when a defendant has previously been convicted of a “violent felony” cannot be utilized, regardless of when the conviction occurred.

The Court’s decision stems from a ruling in 2015. In Johnson v. United States, the court held that the ambiguous residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) violates the Due process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. The ACCA allows the court to sentence defendants to longer prison terms if they have three prior convictions for violent felonies. Some misdemeanors also qualify, if they carry a prison term of two or more years.

Under the ACCA, a violent felony is an offense that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” While there is nothing unconstitutionality wrong regarding ambiguous statutes, this definition is “so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes, or so standard less that it invites arbitrary enforcement.” This legal principle, known as the void-for-vagueness doctrine, prohibits penalties under statutes where it is impossible to know what activity is targeted.

The Supreme Court also ruled that the decision applies retroactively. Meaning that the residual clause cannot enhance a defendant’s sentence, no matter when the conviction occurred, including before the decision in 2015. Most judicial decisions apply prospectively, changing the law moving forward. In Welch’s case, although the conviction took place in 2010, the Supreme Court ruling must hold true.

The Supreme Court Ruling in Welch and Johnson has potentially substantial implications for crimmigation cases. The residual clause under the ACCA was found unconstitutional for the lack of clarity regarding violent crimes. The statute uses language closely resembling the definition of a crime of violence under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1990.

A crime of violence is an aggravated felony that frequently results in the detention and removal of migrants in the United States. However, the reasoning behind the Johnson ruling can be used to attack the constitutionality of the crime of violence basis for deportation.

If you, or a loved one, are facing charges, you need to an experienced crimmigation attorney.  Ronald P. Mondello has a successful and growing practice providing criminal defense counsel and their clients with essential advice on the immigration impact of N.J. criminal charges. Call today for a consultation to find out how we can help you.