DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship Non-Precedent Decision of the and Immigration Administrative Appeals Office Services MATTER OF A-A- DATE: NOV. 20, 2019 APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION PETITION: FORM I-360, PETITION FOR AMERASIAN, WIDOW(ER), OR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT The Petitioner seeks immigrant classification as an abused spouse of a U.S. citizen under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) provisions, codified at section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(A)(iii). The Director of the Vermont Service Center (the Director) denied the Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (VAWA petition), concluding that the Petitioner did not establish that she was a person of good moral character. On appeal, the Petitioner submits a basis statement and a brief reasserting her eligibility for immigrant classification under the VAWA provisions. Upon de novo review of the entire record, we will dismiss the appeal. I. LAW A petitioner who is the spouse of a U.S. citizen may self-petition for immigrant classification if the petitioner demonstrates, among other requirements, that the petitioner is a person of good moral character. Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii)(II)(bb) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(vii). Primary evidence of a petitioner's good moral character is their affidavit, which should be accompanied by local police clearances or state-issued criminal background checks from each of the petitioner's residences during the three years before the petition was filed. 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(v). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the VAWA petition; however, the definition of what evidence is credible and the weight to give such evidence lies within USCIS' sole discretion. Section 204(a)(l)(J) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(2)(i). The burden of proof is on a petitioner to demonstrate their eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369,375 (AAO 2010). II. ANALYSIS A. The Petitioner is Barred from Establishing Her Good Moral Character. The Petitioner is ineligible for VAWA classification because the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that she is a person of good moral character. Section 101 ( f) of the Act, which defines "good moral character," states, in relevant part, that "[n]o person shall be regarded as, or found to be, Matter ofA-A- a person of good moral character who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is or was ... a member of one or more of the classes of persons ... described in paragraph (2)(D) [concerning prostitution] ... of section 212( a) of this Act. .. if the offense described therein, for which such person was convicted or of which [they] admit[] the commission, was committed during such period[.]" USCIS generally focuses on the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of the VAWA petition as the time during which a VAWA petitioner must establish their good moral character. See 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(l)(vii) (requiring that a petitioner submit police clearances or state-issued background checks from each of the petitioner's residences during the three years before having filed the VAWA petition). Section 212(a)(2)(D) of the Act, as referenced in section lOl(f) of the Act, specifically declares inadmissible, among other classes of people, individuals who have "engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status[.]" Here, the Petitioner filed her VAWA petition in March 2017. The record establishes that the Petitioner was charged in 2015 with various criminal offenses. InO20l5, the Petitioner was twice charged for violating section 796.07 of West's Florida Statutes Annotated, a misdemeanor of the second degree which provides that it is illegal"[ f]or a person 18 years of age or older to offer to commit, or to commit, or to engage in, prostitution, lewdness, or assignation." 1 Thereafter, inl 12015, she was stopped for driving with an expired license in violation of section 322.065 of West's Florida Statutes Annotated. Despite that offense being an infraction, the Petitioner was arrested on that date pursuant to warrants for her arrest after she failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing concerning the prostitution offenses in violation of section 843.15 of West's Florida Statutes Annotated. Although the Petitioner claims that an arrest, alone, is insufficient to establish a conviction, and she adds that police reports are not conclusive evidence that she committed the crime of which she was accused, the record shows that the Petitioner and the prosecutor signed a Stipulation for Deferred Prosecution Re: Notice to Appear/Un[form Traffic Citation/Information (stipulation) in I 12015. The stipulation appears to be a template form with blank spaces to enter specific details. Specifically, the stipulation references, in handwritten text, the case number for the prostitution offenses; lists the offenses, in handwritten text, as "Offer Commit Prost x 2[;]" and explains that the prosecutor would agree to "abandon prosecution of this case" if the Petitioner, among ot~irements, "Plea[ded] No Contest to Any Infractions When Case Resolves[.]" In L__J 2016, the prosecutor issued a Nolle Prosequi for Deferred Prosecution/PTI/Diversion (nolle prosequi) explaining that "although there was probable cause for the charge(s), the State enters a nolle prosequi in the above listed matter for the following reason(s): ... successful completion of diversion program in lieu of judicial disposition." The final requirement on the stipulation indicates that the Petitioner would have needed to plead no contest, or nolo contendere, to the prostitution offenses as a condition for the prosecutor's nolle prosequi. The Petitioner has not submitted evidence of the final court disposition to show otherwise. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the prostitution offenses. A conviction occurs where there is "a formal judgment of guilt of the alien entered by a court" or, "if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where ... a judge or jury has found the alien guilty, or the 1 The Petitioner's criminal offenses were classified as misdemeanors of the second degree as "a first violation" and were punishable "by a definite term of imprisonment not exceeding 60 days." Fla. Stat. Ann.§ 775.082 (West 2017). 2 Matter ofA-A- alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and ... the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty to be imposed." Section 10l(a)(48)(A) of the Act. As we find that the Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere to the prostitution charges, we find that the Petitioner has satisfied the first prong of the inquiry concerning whether the court withheld an adjudication of guilt. The remaining requirement is that the judge have "ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty[.]" See id. In addition to requiring a plea of nolo contendere, the Petitioner was required to pay the $50 cost of prosecution and complete a "Pipe Course[.]"2 We find that those conditions to the stipulation amount to a penalty such that the record establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Petitioner was convicted under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the Director erred by not allowing her the opportunity to seek a waiver under section 204( a )(1 )( C) of the Act. 3 Under that section, an act or conviction that is waivable with respect to a determination of a VAWA self-petitioner's admissibility or deportability under the Act will not bar a finding of good moral character, notwithstanding section l0l(f) of the Act, if the act or conviction was connected to the battery or extreme cruelty upon which the VAWA petition is based. Section 204(a)(l)(C) of the Act. While inadmissibility due to a prostitution conviction may be waived for VAWA self-petitioners under section 212(h) of the Act, the Director in this case did consider the Petitioner's eligibility for a waiver and found that the Petitioner had not established a connection between her convictions and battery or extreme cruelty by her U.S. citizen spouse, K-A-B-, to warrant granting her a waiver. 4 See Director's Decision at 5 ("A waiver is available and the record has been reviewed to determine if you are eligible for a waiver under Section 204(a)(l)(C) of the Act ... "). We also find that the Petitioner's evidence does not establish a connection between her convictions and the battery or extreme cruelty upon which she bases her VAWA petition to warrant a waiver. The Petitioner's counsel argues that, although the Petitioner has not claimed a connection, a full review of the record "tend[ s] to lead to the presumption that the prostitution was, in fact, related to the suffered abuse." However, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to demonstrate her eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence; and counsel does not provide any legal authority for his assertion that a presumption applies. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369 at 375. Furthermore, assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter ofObaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533,534 n.2 (BIA 1988) (citing 2 The record does not establish the meaning of "Pipe Course[.]" The form otherwise lists typed charges as DUS NVDL VIOL.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Legal Methods for the Suppression of Organized Crime (A Symposium) Arthur Buller
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 48 | Issue 4 Article 8 1958 Legal Methods for the Suppression of Organized Crime (A Symposium) Arthur Buller Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Arthur Buller, Legal Methods for the Suppression of Organized Crime (A Symposium), 48 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 414 (1957-1958) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CRIMINAt LAW CASE NOTES AND COMMENTS Prepared by students of Northwestern University School of Law, under the direction of the student members of the Law School's Journal Editorial Board. Arthur Buller, Editor-in-Chief Arthur Rollin, Associate Editor Marvin Aspen Jay Oliff Malcolm Gaynor Louis Sunderland Ronald Mora Howard Sweig LEGAL METHODS FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF ORGANIZED CRIME (A SYMPOSIUM) Organized crime is a vital problem in the "The Use of Equitable Devices to Suppress field of law enforcement. Because of the nature Organized Crime", will consider the mechanics of its various forms of activity, the suppression and availability of the use of the injunction and of organized crime presents difficulties not other equitable remedies where the usual legal ordinarily encountered in other areas of criminal remedies have proved inadequate. The fifth and conduct. In this and subsequent issues of the concluding paper, "Indirect Control of Organized Journal, a series of articles will examine these Crime Through Liquor License Revocation", will problems and the legal remedies available for examine this tactic as a substitute for direct their solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 2:09-Cv-04870-MMB Document 49 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 21
    Case 2:09-cv-04870-MMB Document 49 Filed 07/20/11 Page 1 of 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JULIA QUAGLIARELLO : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 09-4870 OFFICER JOSHUA DEWEES, et al. : MEMORANDUM RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE Baylson, J. July 20, 2011 I. Introduction Currently pending before the Court in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law are the parties’ cross-motions in limine to exclude certain evidence at trial. Defendants filed the following three motions: 1) a Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony of Walter Signorelli, Plaintiff’s Police Expert; 2) a Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Pre-Incident Lawsuits and Settlements; and 3) a Motion in Limine to Preclude Plaintiff from Offering Evidence at Trial of Citizen Complaints filed Against Police Officer Dewees and Prior Disciplinary Records. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Preclude Introduction of Plaintiff’s Plea of Guilty in State Criminal Proceedings and to Preclude Testimony from Defendants’ Witnesses Anna Marie Murphy, Esquire, Anthony Amoroso, Esquire, Jay Mettera, Esquire, Sam Yim, Esquire and Donna Gorbey on June 1, 2011. The Court has reviewed the parties’ motions and responses in opposition, and held oral argument on pending motions on May 24, 2011. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Opinion Testimony of Walter Signorelli (ECF No. 25) will be granted in part and denied in part. -1- Case 2:09-cv-04870-MMB Document 49 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 21 The Court will reserve decision on Defendants’ Motions in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Pre- Incident Lawsuits and Settlements (ECF No.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE V. KALLBERG--DISSENT
    ****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE v. KALLBERGÐDISSENT ESPINOSA, J., dissenting. The majority concludes that the disposition agreement between the defendant, Craig Kallberg, and the state, as reflected in the tran- script of the September 22, 2011 disposition hearing, was ambiguous as to whether the defendant's charitable contribution of $271 was intended to be in exchange for the nolle prosequi of the charges that the state has reinstituted in the present case.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Study Guide Chapter Seven
    STUDENT STUDY GUIDE CHAPTER SEVEN Multiple Choice Questions 1. Which of the following contributes to a large amount of public attention for a criminal trial? a. Spectacular crime b. Notorious parties c. Sympathetic victim d. All of the above 2. How are most criminal cases resolved? a. Arraignment b. Plea Bargaining c. Trials d. Appeals 3. Preventive detention has been enacted into law through the ____________. a. Bail Reform Act b. Bail Restoration Act c. Bond Improvement Act d. Bond Policy Act 4. The customary fee for a bail bondsman is ____ of the bail amount. a. 5% b. 10% c. 20% d. 25% 5. Which of the following is not a feature of the grand jury? a. Open to the public b. Advised by a prosecuting attorney c. Sworn to forever secrecy d. Size variation among states 6. If a defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court enters a(n) ____________ plea on his or her behalf. a. guilty b. not guilty c. nolo contendere d. Alford 1 7. Who is responsible for preparing a presentence investigation report? a. Judge b. Jury c. Probation officer d. Corrections officer 8. If a motion for _____________ is granted, one side may have to produce lists of witnesses and witness roles in the case. a. discovery b. severance c. suppression d. summary judgment 9. Which of the following motions may be requested in order to make the defendant appear less culpable? a. Motion for discovery b. Motion in limine c. Motion for change of venue d. Motion to sever 10. Which of the following motions might be requested as the result of excessive pretrial publicity? a.
    [Show full text]
  • Jun a 1 Ioqy Marcia J
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Case No. 2007-0923 Plaintiff-Appellee, On Appeal from the Licking County Court of Appeals, V. Fifth Appellate District HAROLD T. BIESER, Court of Appeals Case No. 06 CA 00045 Defendant-Appellant. MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HAROLD T. BIESER IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION Tricia M. Klockner (0077414) John J. Kulewicz (0008376) Assistant Law Director (Counsel of Record) City of Newark Alexandra T. Schimmer (0075732) 40 West Main Street Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP Newark, Ohio 43055 52 East Gay Street (740) 349-6663 P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1008 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee (614) 464-5634 State of Ohio (614) 719-4812 (Facsimile) [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Harold T. Bieser JUN A 1 IOQY MARCIA J. MENGEL; CLERK SUPREME COURT OF OHIO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. THIS CASE INVOLVES A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION AND RAISES QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTEREST .............1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS . ...................................................................4 III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS OF LAW ...........................................7 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 1: The rule announced in State v. Broughton (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 253, 581 N.E. 2d 541 -- that speedy-trial time ordinarily stops running in the interim between a nolle prosequi dismissal and refiling of the same charges -- does not apply where the defendant was not notified of the dismissal and the bond was retained after dismissal ...........................................................7 PROPOSITION OF LAW NO. 2: The State violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as Section 10, Article I, of the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Speedy Trial Act (R.C.
    [Show full text]
  • SELECTED DECISIONS of the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Under the OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
    OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS SELECTED DECISIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE under THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL Volume 7 Sixty-sixth to seventy-fourth sessions (July 1999 – March 2002) UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 2006 NOTE Material contained in this publication may be freely quoted or reprinted, provided credit is given and a copy of the publication containing the reprinted material is sent to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Palais des Nations, 8-14 avenue de la Paix, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland. CCPR/C/OP/7 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. E.06.XIV.1 ISBN 92-1-130294-3 ii CONTENTS (Selected decisions — Sixty-sixth to seventy-fourth sessions) Page Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 FINAL DECISIONS A. Decision declaring a communication admissible (the number of the Committee session is indicated in brackets) No. 845/1999 [67] Rawle Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago............................. 5 B. Decisions declaring a communication inadmissible (the number of the Committee session is indicated in brackets) No. 717/1996 [66] Acuña Inostroza et al v. Chile.............................................. 13 No. 880/1999 [74] Terry Irving v. Australia...................................................... 18 No. 925/2000 [73] Wan Kuok Koi v. Portugal .................................................. 22 C. Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol No. 580/1994 [74] Glen Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago ................................... 29 No. 688/1996 [69] María Sybila Arredondo v. Peru.......................................... 36 No. 701/1996 [69] Cesario Gómez Vázquez v. Spain........................................ 43 No. 727/1996 [71] Dobroslav Paraga v. Croatia ................................................ 48 No. 736/1997 [70] Malcolm Ross v.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
    A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case Against Alford Pleas
    University of Denver Criminal Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 6 January 2012 Sacrificing undamentalF Principles of Justice for Efficiency: The Case against Alford Pleas Brandi L. Joffrion Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/crimlawrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Brandi L. Joffrion, Sacrificing undamentalF Principles of Justice for Efficiency: The Case against Alford Pleas, 2 U. Denv. Crim. L. Rev. 39 (2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Denver Criminal Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. Joffrion: Sacrificing Fundamental Principles of Justice for Efficiency: The UNIVERSITY OF DENVER CRIMINAL LAw PCEVIEW SPRING 2012 UNIVERSITY OF DENVER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW SPRING 2012 SACRIFICING FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE FOR EFFICIENCY: THE CASE AGAINST ALFORD PLEAS Brandi L. Joffrion* I. INTRODUCTION Of all federal convictions sentenced under the U.S. Sentencing Reform Act in 2010, 96.8% were obtained through a guilty plea.1 According to the most recent data, 95% of state convictions obtained in the nation's 75 largest counties were also obtained through a guilty plea.2 Despite its controversial nature, 3 it was plea bargaining 4 that led to the majority of these aforementioned guilty pleas.5 Out of all the pleas currently available to criminal defendants, the A/ford plea is perhaps the most controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Cause No. Misdemeanor Plea of Guilty/Nolo Contendere
    CAUSE NO. THE STATE OF TEXAS ' IN THE COUNTY COURT ' VS. ' AT LAW NO. 3 OF ' ' CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS (Defendant=s Name) MISDEMEANOR PLEA OF GUILTY/NOLO CONTENDERE Comes now the above named defendant in the above numbered and entitled cause, and prior to entering a plea herein represents to the Court the following: I am mentally competent and I understand that I am charged with the misdemeanor offense of for which the punishment is a fine not to exceed $ and/or confinement in jail not to exceed . I understand that I have the right to a jury trial; the right to compel witnesses to testify on my behalf; the right to confront and cross-examine my accusers; the right to be arraigned and have the charge read to me in open court; the right to remain silent and that anything I say can be used against me; and the right to have ten days after the appointment of any attorney before entering a plea. I understand that upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, with a jury waiver, punishment may be assessed by the Court either upon or without evidence at the discretion of the Court; that if I am not a citizen of the United States my plea of guilty or nolo contendere may result in my deportation, exclusion from admission to this country, or denial of naturalization under federal law; that if I am on probation or parole, my plea of guilty or nolo contendere may result in the revocation of my probation or parole resulting in my further confinement; that if I am found guilty, this case may be used to enhance my punishment; if I am convicted of another offense that my driver=s license or privilege to obtain a driver=s license may be subject to suspension or revocation as provided by law, and that if the Court does not exceed the agreed recommendation in assessing punishment, that my right to appeal my conviction will be limited to matters raised by written motion and ruled upon before trial unless the Court gives permission to raise other matters.
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION for EXPUNGEMENT FILED in a CIRCUIT COURT – ACQUITTAL/DISMISSAL (Page 4 of These Instructions), for Additional Information
    Form CC-1473 PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT FILED IN A Form CC-1473 CIRCUIT COURT – ACQUITTAL/DISMISSAL Using This Revisable PDF Form 1. Copies a. Original – to court. b. Copy – arrange to have served on Commonwealth’s Attorney in the county or city in which the petition is filed. 2. Attachments a. Copy of order or acquittal or dismissal. b. Copy of warrant(s) or indictment(s) for the charge(s) you seek to have expunged. c. Completed circuit court form CC-1416, COVER SHEET FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS, if required by the clerk. 3. Preparation details a. Data Element Nos. 1-20 prepared by the petitioner or the attorney for the petitioner. b. Data Element Nos. 21-24 prepared by the clerk of court or deputy clerk, who will also provide or complete the case number if unknown to the petitioner (Data Element No. 1). c. Data Element No. 25 is provided for the use of the petitioner. See circuit court form CC-1473 (INST), INSTRUCTIONS FOR PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT FILED IN A CIRCUIT COURT – ACQUITTAL/DISMISSAL (page 4 of these instructions), for additional information. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA Form CC-1473 Revised 11/15 PETITION FOR EXPUNGEMENT Case No. ................................1................................ ............. FILED IN A CIRCUIT COURT – ACQUITTAL/DISMISSAL Commonwealth of Virginia VA. CODE § 19.2-392.2 A ................................................................................................2 ....................................................................................... Circuit Court
    [Show full text]
  • Use-Of-Force, De-Escalation Tactics and Discipline
    The City of New York Department of Investigation MARK G. PETERS COMMISSIONER Inspector General Philip K. Eure Office of Inspector General for the NYPD 80 MAIDEN LANE Release #05-2015 NEW YORK, NY 10038 nyc.gov/oignypd 212-806-5200 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: DIANE STRUZZI THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2015 (212) 825-5931 DOI’S OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE NYPD ISSUES REPORT ON POLICE USE OF FORCE FINDING FAILURE TO PROPERLY INSTRUCT ON DE-ESCALATION TACTICS AND IMPOSE DISCIPLINE Today, the Department of Investigation’s (DOI) Office of the Inspector General for the NYPD (OIG- NYPD) issued its first comprehensive Report on Use of Force by members of the New York City Police Department (NYPD). OIG-NYPD’s investigation revealed: a lack of discipline imposed on officers involved in substantiated force allegations — even when the Department was provided with evidence that excessive force was used; an inability to track use-of-force encounters by officers; and a failure to properly instruct and employ de-escalation tactics, among other findings. The Report examines five important aspects of NYPD use of force: (1) trends; (2) reporting; (3) de-escalation; (4) training; and (5) discipline. As part of its investigation, OIG-NYPD conducted a detailed analysis of all 179 cases where the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) determined that from 2010 through 2014 officers used excessive force, as well as the accompanying NYPD disciplinary records for over 100 cases where a final disciplinary disposition was reached. Investigators also assessed NYPD’s Patrol Guide procedures on use of force and observed and evaluated NYPD training at the Police Academy and in-service training modules.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 48 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 180
    Rule 48 TITLE 18, APPENDIX—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 180 (c) TIMING OF A MOTION. A party must serve a that the public prosecutor may enter a nolle prosequi in written motion—other than one that the court his discretion, without any action by the court, pre- may hear ex parte—and any hearing notice at vails in the Federal courts, Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. least 7 days before the hearing date, unless a 454, 457; United States v. Woody, 2 F.2d 262 (D.Mont.). rule or court order sets a different period. For This provision will permit the filing of a nolle prosequi only by leave of court. This is similar to the rule now good cause, the court may set a different period prevailing in many States. A.L.I. Code of Criminal Pro- upon ex parte application. cedure, Commentaries, pp. 895–897. (d) AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTING A MOTION. The mov- 2. The rule confers the power to file a dismissal by ing party must serve any supporting affidavit leave of court on the Attorney General, as well as on with the motion. A responding party must serve the United States attorney, since under existing law any opposing affidavit at least one day before the Attorney General exercises ‘‘general superintend- the hearing, unless the court permits later serv- ence and direction’’ over the United States attorneys ice. ‘‘as to the manner of discharging their respective du- ties,’’ 5 U.S.C. 317 [now 28 U.S.C. 509, 547]. Moreover it (As amended Apr. 29, 2002, eff.
    [Show full text]