Pereida v. Wilkinson's guest appearances

Pereida v. Wilkinson

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Teleforum

The Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed

Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

Supreme Court Opinions

Let's Talk Law: w/ Wendy M.

Encino Motorcars

Hawaii v. Hawaii

Liu v. Securities

Henry Schein

Mathena v. Malvo

Egbert v. Boule

Hernandez v. Mesa

Nasrallah v. Barr

Kisor v. Wilkie

Janus v. AFSCME

Guzman Chavez

Allen v. Cooper

John Wiley

Ross v. Blake

CRST Van

OwlTail

In this episode, Wendy talks about Pereida v. Wilkinson and moral turpitude.

In this episode, Wendy talks about Pereida v. Wilkinson and moral turpitude.

Let's Talk About: Pereida v. Wilkinson

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court held 5-3 that an individual seeking relief from a lawful removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) must “shoulder [the] heavy burden” of proving every element of eligibility for relief including the absence of a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude.   Clemente Avelino Pereida argued on appeal that although he was recently convicted of a crime, he remained eligible for relief because he refused to disclose the nature of the crime so moral turpitude could not be proven.  The Court disagreed with Pereida, siding with the Eight Circuit and finding Pereida must show the crime was not one of moral turpitude in order to be eligible for relief under the INA.Featuring:-- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

In Pereida v. Wilkinson, the Supreme Court held 5-3 that an individual seeking relief from a lawful removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) must “shoulder [the] heavy burden” of proving every element of eligibility for relief including the absence of a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude. Clemente Avelino Pereida argued on appeal that although he was recently convicted of a crime, he remained eligible for relief because he refused to disclose the nature of the crime so moral turpitude could not be proven. The Court disagreed with Pereida, siding with the Eight Circuit and finding Pereida must show the crime was not one of moral turpitude in order to be eligible for relief under the INA. Featuring: -- Brian M. Fish, Special Assistant, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland

Courthouse Steps Decision Teleforum: Pereida v. Wilkinson

Pereida did not carry his burden to prove he had not been convicted of certain crimes.

Pereida did not carry his burden to prove he had not been convicted of certain crimes.

Pereida v. Wilkinson (Immigration)

A case in which the Court held that a nonpermanent resident seeking to cancel a lawful removal order fails to carry his burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense under the Immigration and Nationality Act when the conviction on his record is ambiguous regarding whether a disqualifying offense formed the basis of his conviction.