U.S.

Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals Office ofthe Clerk

5/07 leesburg Pike. S11ite 2000 Fa/ls Ch11rch. Virginia 2204/

INGRAM, LINDON 400 FAUNCE CORNER ROAD A#055-557-778 NO. DARTMOUTH, MA 02748

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel

BOS

P.0. Box 8728

Boston, MA 02114

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

Name: INGRAM, LINDON

A055-557 -778

Date of this notice: 1/21/2011

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case. Sincerely,

Donna Carr Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members: King, Carol

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Lindon Ingram, A055 557 778 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)

.\

'

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Imm igration Review Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

File:
In re:

A055 557 778 - Boston, MA LINDON INGRAM

Date:

JAN 21 2on

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

In an oral decision dated October 14, 2010, an Immigration Judge found the respondent

removable; determined that he did not demonstrate eligibility for any relief from removal; and ordered him removed from the United States to Jamaica.' decision. The record will be remanded. The respondent was found removable as charged, as convicted of an aggravated felony under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), in conjunction with section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(B), and as convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude under section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. As substantiated by conviction documents (Ex. 3), the respondent has Massachusetts convictions, in 2009 upon a guilty plea for "possess to distribute Class D drug/marijuana" and in 2008 for ''witness/intimidate!' The record reflects that he was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on February 19, 2003. On appeal, the respondent alleges that he filed a request for post-conviction relief with the criminal court in November 2010, subsequent to the Immigration Judge's October 2010 decision. With regard to post-conviction relief, he now contends that he entered a defective guilty plea on the drug trafficking charge and claims ineffective assistance from criminal counsel based on Padilla v. The respondent appealed from that

Kentucky, 559 U.S._, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 2010WL 1222274 (March 31, 2010) (holding that a lawyer
representing an alien in connection with a guilty plea to a criminal offense has a constitutional duty to advise the alien about the risk of deportation arising from the conviction). We find that a remand is warranted so that the Imm igration Judge may consider the new evidence pertaining to the respondent's request for post-conviction relief. On remand, the hnmigration Judge should receive further evidence to ascertain whether this request was actually filed with the criminal court, which is not apparent on the current record. If the petition for post-conviction relief has been filed with the criminal court, the Immigration Judge should verify its status and should evaluate its

The proceedings before the Immigration Judge in this matter were completed in Boston,

Massachusetts through video conference pursuant to section 240(b)(2){A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(2)(A)(iii).

Cite as: Lindon Ingram, A055 557 778 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)

I
.

A055 557 778

impact on the respondent's removability and eligibility for relief. the Immigration Court. Accordingly, we issue the following order.

Both the respondent and the

Department of Homeland Security may present any and all available relevant evidence to

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

ORDER:

The record is remanded to the hnmigration Court for further proceedings and for the

issuance of a new decision, consisten with this opinion.

Cite as: Lindon Ingram, A055 557 778 (BIA Jan. 21, 2011)

UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMENT O F JU STICE EXECUTIVE O F FICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW UNITE D STATES IMMIGRATION COUR T Boston, Massachusetts File No. : A 055 557 778 October 14, 2010

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

In the Matter of LIN D O N I NGRAM Respondent CHARGE S: Section 237 (a) (2) (A) (i) of the Inunigration and Nationality Act - convicted of crime involving moral turpitude within five years after admission. Section 237 (a) (2) (A) (iii) of the Inunigration and Nationality Act - convicted of aggravated felony. IN REMOVAL PRO CEE DINGS

APPLICATIONS:

ON BEHAL F O F RE SPO N DENT: Pro se

ON BEHALF O F DHS: Helen Moore, Esquire Assistant Chief Counsel J FK Federal Building Room 425 Government Center Boston, Massachusetts 02203

ORAL DECISION O F THE IMMIGRATION J U DGE The respondent in this case is a 45-year-old, and citizen of Jamaica. single, native

Removal proceedings were initiated

against him when the Inunigration Service of the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear on July 16, 2010,

charging him with being removable from the United States on the basis of the charge set forth about. (Exhibit 1).


The respondent admitted the truth of the factual allegations in the Notice to Appear on the basis of which, documentary evidence of record, in addition to the

I conclude that removability has

been established by clear and convincing evidence. The documentary evidence of record establishes that on August 25, 2009, the respondent was convicted in the Springfield Massachusetts, of the crime of to wit:

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

District Court in Springfield,

possession to distribute a Class D controlled substance, mari j uana. As a result of that conviction,

the respondent was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months in the house of correction on and after the sentence that he was currently serving at that time. (Exhibit 3).

I do find that the respondent has been convicted of a drug trafficking crime which is considered to be an aggravated felony in the United States. With that being the case, any relief from removal. The documentary evidence of record further establishes that on March 11, 2008, the respondent was convicted in the in Springfield, Massachusetts, for the respondent is not eligible for

Springfield District Court,

the offense of witness intimidation.

The record reflects that

the events which gave rise to that conviction occurred on March 7, 2007. I do find that the crime of witness intimidation is a Additionally, I find that one

crime involving moral turpitude.

who is convicted of that crime may be sentenced to a term of

A 055 557 778

October 14,

2010

imprisonment of one year or longer. Additionally, I find that the respondent was admitted to the February 19, 2003. That

United States as a permanent resident on being the case,

the respondent has been convicted of a crime

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center | www.irac.net

involving moral turpitude within five years of his admission as a permanent resident. The respondent is not eligible for relief, previously stated, entered: OR DER IT I S HEREBY OR DERE D that the respodent be removed from the United States to Jamaica on the basis of the charges contained in the Notice to Appear. and, accordingly, as I have

the following order will be

LEONAR D I. SHAPIRO U.S. Immigration Judge

A 055 557 778

October 14,

2010