In the case at hand, an immigration judge ordered the deportation of Gabriel Almanza-Arenas after finding that his conviction for vehicle theft in California met the statutory bar as a crime involving moral turpitude.
The Board of Immigration Appeals had affirmed that finding, concluding that Almanza-Arenas had a duty he did not meet to produce evidence showing that he did not intend to permanently deprive anyone of the vehicle he stole.
After a three-judge panel granted Almanza-Arenas’ petition for review, the federal appeals court agreed to rehear the case en banc and was unanimous Monday in ruling for the immigrant.
Read much more:
Alrighty then, so it’s now assumed that when someone steals your car He was just ‘borrowing’ it without permission. He surely meant to return it to you someday.
The fact that this has never happened except when the cops manage to recover the vehicle, abandoned or wrecked not withstanding.
And let’s not muddy the legal waters by pointing out that many times, a crook will steal a car in order to commit some more heinous crime (the stolen vehicle not being able to be traced back to him).
Not to mention that an inordinate number of drunk driving, hit and runs, police chases and traffic accidents are caused by illegal aliens driving without a license or insurance.
I suppose this ruling will be used as a precedent by defense attorneys to shield their clients from deportation arising from other thefts like cell phones, burglaries, shoplifting and skipping out without paying for food and drink already consumed (because ya never know, the thief may return and regurgitate the contents of his stomach).
In fact, why not just rule the entire statute regarding deportation of criminal aliens null and void. I mean, isn’t it just double jeopardy, punishing people twice for the same crime?
Let’s face it, if they did deport this guy to Mexico, he’d probably sneak back into the US again by week’s end with fresh new criminal ‘to do’ list.