RElief from Removal does not mean eligible for naturalization

[BigJoe5]

INA 318 states in pertinent part:

".... the findings of the Attorney General [Immigration Judge or BIA] in terminating removal proceedings or in canceling the removal of an alien pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, shall not be deemed binding in any way upon the Secretary of Homeland Security [USCIS] with respect to the question of whether such person has established his eligibility for naturalization as required by this subchapter."

I will add an attachment of a recent case... http://www.slideshare.net/BigJoe5/natz-denied-appealed-to-9th-circuit

 

[Bobsmyth]

Not surprising considering that removal proceedings and naturalization eligibility fall under are entirely separate procedures.

 

[KASPAR]

An aggravated felon convicted of an assault to commit a rape and served 1 year in prison with 3 in probation has applied for citizenship and was found to lack good moral character to establish eligibility for naturalization.

In 1999 the petitioner was placed in removal proceedings stemming from conviction of aggravated felony described above. During the proceeding the petition applied for waiver under former 212(c) and in 2004 was granted relief by an immigration judge. Being granted relief under 212(c) is not an equivalent of unconditional pardon or expungement and, consequently, does not vacate the record of petitioner of the aggaravated felony of which he was convicted earlier.

Since aggravated felons are precluded from naturalization eligibility, the petitioners application for naturalization was denied and governments decision sustained in appeal to 9th circuit court.

The proper way to describe this case is to state that an aggravated felon who was convicted of an assault to commit a rape and served 1 year in prison with 3 in probation is not eligible for Naturalization and can not use the waiver of deportability in exclusion proceedings to overcome good moral character requirement in separate proceeding.