These recent BUI stories remind us of the consequences of operating a boat while intoxicated.

Skipper Liable for Allowing Intoxicated Man to Pilot Boat

Percy Small and Matthew Reynolds are now well aware of what can happen when one mixes alcohol with boating. During an evening outing with 12 friends in Sydney Harbor, the boat that the men were piloting crashed, killing six of their friends. Each of the men faces a minimum of five years and maximum of seven and a half years in jail for their participation in the tragedy.
The group began the evening drinking at a local hotel and later moved the festivities to the house of one of the partygoers, where they continued to drink and take drugs. The manager of the hotel had too much to drink and asked Reynolds to take him by boat to drop off a set of hotel keys. Reynolds agreed and borrowed a boat large enough for twelve of his friends to join him on the errand.

While on board, the group continued drinking and doing drugs. On the way back from delivering the keys, the group stopped the boat at one of the light markers in the harbor and remained there for a period of time. At 2:30 in the morning, on the way back to shore, the group’s boat hit a fishing boat. Six of the group perished; the youngest was just 20 years old. Reynolds’ girlfriend was among the dead.

During a subsequent investigation, it was revealed that Reynolds was not piloting the boat at the time of the incident. Instead, he allowed Small to navigate even though Small was too intoxicated to drive. During the evening Small had been smoking pot, had snorted cocaine, and had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .124.

Small was charged with dangerous navigation causing death and Reynolds was charged with manslaughter. During criminal proceedings, both Reynolds and Small appeared to be remorseful about what had transpired that fateful evening. However, Reynolds refused to take responsibility for taking the boat and Small claimed he was simply doing what Reynolds told him to do.

Reynolds blamed both the hotel manager for asking him to drive him and Small for claiming that he had a license to drive the boat. Further, the defendants attempted to blame the fishing boat pilot for failing to maintain a proper path and avoid colliding with the party boat.

BUI Tragedy in Nebraska

Todd Spangler of Omaha, Nebraska was recently convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to up to four years in prison in connection to the death of a family friend during a boating incident.

Spangler’s blood alcohol content was over twice the legal limit for driving an automobile while he was driving his boat on a lake in
Douglas County.

Spangler’s wife, Kimberly, and family friend Jennifer Finke-Dwyer were riding in an inner tube that was being towed by the boat that Todd was piloting. Unfortunately, Todd turned the boat too sharply and the women were slammed into the dock. Finke-Dwyer, aged 30, died from blunt force trauma to her liver. She had been working on her doctorate at the University of Nebraska.
Although he showed remorse for his actions, the judge refused Spangler’s request for probation and sentenced him to two to four years in prison; he’ll be eligible for parole in approximately one year. Spangler had faced up to 20 years in prison.

A 23-year-old man was sentenced to 20 years in prison recently by a judge in Georgia in connection with a fatal heroin overdose. Warren Ullom, singer with the Atlanta-based rock band “The Judies,” had pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in the death of 32-year-old Rachel San Inocencio. Ullom was also convicted of possession and distribution of heroin and cocaine.

The circumstances surrounding the death take it out of the realm of mere “accidental” overdose and make it something entirely more sinister. Actions taken by Ullom that fateful day not only exacerbated San Inocencio’s already precarious position, but may also have prevented her from getting life-saving treatment.

On June 6, 2008, just days after the couple met, San Inocencio and Ullom shot heroin at Ullom’s apartment; San Inocenico became ill shortly thereafter and lost consciousness. Instead of calling 911, Ullom texted one of his friends and told him to bring over some cocaine to help revive San Inocencio. When his friend arrived with the drugs, Ullom proceeded to inject the fallen woman with two doses of cocaine. Upon leaving the apartment, Ullom’s friend called 911, but didn’t give the dispatcher the correct address. In the mean-time, Ullom sent the friend another text indicating that San Inocencio was feeling better and didn’t need an ambulance.

San Inocencio died thirty minutes later and was pronounced dead by emergency workers who responded to Ullom’s own belated 911 call. Ullom stashed the remaining coke in San Inocencio’s purse and told unsuspecting police officers to take it with them when they collected the body. To make matter’s worse, Ullom later pawned San Inocencio’s diamond earrings.

Ullom had originally been charged with felony murder, which carries with it a mandatory 30-year minimum sentence. However, he later pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. His lawyer claims that the heroin dealer who sold Ullom the drugs was the party responsible for the tragedy.

In anticipation of his incarceration, the singer and his band played farewell performances, made a DVD, and recorded some additional songs.

Ullom’s case, however, pales in comparison to the story of Carly and Andrea Townsend. In 2008, Carly’s mother, Andrea, was found guilty of manslaughter due to neglect in the death of her teenaged daughter after failing to call emergency personnel when Carly overdosed on heroin. Carly’s twenty-six year old sister, Gemma, was also charged in the crime.

During the trial, Andrea Townsend claimed that Carly’s lips briefly turned blue after taking the heroin, but that they eventually returned to normal color. Townsend also claimed that Carly was mumbling, and thus, not in any danger. Townsend was downstairs watching TV while her daughter was passed out upstairs, but insisted that she “listened” from the living room door a number of times and heard her snoring. Townsend refrained from calling an ambulance for fear that she or her daughter would get in trouble.

Sixteen-year-old Carly had been taking drugs for two years and had recently been released from a juvenile detention center into her mother’s care. It was revealed that 20 of Carly’s friends had recently died from heroin overdoses.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-rocker-convicted-in-544100.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2008/04/18/mother-of-drug-overdose-girl-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-91466-20782361/

Santini alleges that the Saints attempted to conceal the 2009 theft of approximately one hundred thirty tablets of the prescription drug Vicodin from its training facility in Metarie by a coach. Santini also alleges that another coach was given an inappropriate amount of the drug – an amount that could signal drug abuse. No players have been implicated in the incident. Santini, the Saints’ former security director and retired FBI agent, resigned last year.

Vicodin (a.k.a. hydrocodone) is the most widely prescribed painkiller in the US and is highly addictive. As an authorized distributor of the painkiller, the Saints are required by law to account for all pills under its control, ensure that they are only dispensed when prescribed by a doctor, and safeguard against unlawful possession or theft. Theft of Vicodin can be a felony.

When allegations of prescription drug mishandling are made, the DEA’s diversion investigators examine whether security procedures and record keeping for narcotics handling complied with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). However, mishandling of narcotics can also be a state crime; Louisiana’s Jefferson Parish has yet to begin its own investigation of the matter.

The Saints organization has denied the allegations made in the lawsuit and claim that Santini is attempting to extort money from his former employer. Reports indicate that Santini demanded up to two million dollars from the team in advance of the suit.

Prior to quitting, Santini allegedly had conversations with team trainers wherein he encouraged them to refuse to go along with the cover-up of the theft. Transcripts of the taped conversations, which were turned over to FBI investigators prior to his resignation, are included as part of the suit. In court documents, Santini also describes a video showing a Saints coach taking keys from the trainer’s office and using them to access the team’s drug locker. The lawsuit alleges that this same coach had a medical condition that required treatment with Vicodin and that his reliance on the drug had grown beyond what could be satisfied by his doctor’s prescriptions. Although not named in the suit, Coach Sean Payton has issued a statement denying that he had stolen the pills or was addicted to Vicodin.

Santini also claims that he was instructed by Saints GM Mickey Loomis to refrain from disclosing what he knew about the theft and it was his refusal to keep quiet that resulted in his resignation. The suit also claims that Loomis instructed employees to change logs prior to an NFL audit so that it would appear that all pills were accounted for or properly dispensed to players for legitimate medical reasons.

US immigration laws impose different eligibility standards on aliens depending on where they are, what benefit they are seeking, and their personal circumstances. Some bars to entry are waivable while others are not.

A related question, although admittedly rarely encountered in my practice, is how US citizens fare when attempting to visit or move to a foreign country. Do those same crimes, medical conditions, and immigration violations that plague aliens in America similarly affect US citizens abroad?

Any analysis of foreign immigration laws should probably begin with one of our closest neighbors. What would happen if you suddenly found yourself in Buffalo and wanted to do a little sightseeing up north? Advances in technology now make it possible for countries to exchange information about citizens, such as criminal history, with the click of a button. People with criminal history who, in the past, could travel freely to other countries may want to think twice before heading to the border.

Immigration regulations for Canada are found in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and make foreign nationals inadmissible on security grounds, human rights violations, criminal grounds, health-related grounds, financial grounds, misrepresentation, violation of Canadian immigration laws, and inadmissibility of family members.

Let’s face it, there are a few heinous crimes that would probably make someone inadmissible in most developed nations (murder comes immediately to mind). However, it may surprise you that Canada is actually stricter than the United States when it comes to who can pass through its border. Examples of offenses that may make one inadmissible to Canada include shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, illegal possession of a firearm, posession of illegal substances, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, and driving under the influence.

Section 36(1) of the IRPA bars admission for serious crimes such as:

-convicted in Canada of an offense punishable by maximum imprisonment of 10 years or more or where an actual sentence of more than six months was imposed;

-convicted of a crime outside Canada that would be punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years if committed in Canada

-committing an act outside Canada that is an offense where committed and, if it had been committed in Canada, would be punishable by a maximum term of at least 10 years.

Section 36(2) deems foreign nationals to be inadmissible after:

-having been convicted in Canada of an offense punishable by way of indictment or of two offenses not arising from a single occurrence;

-a foreign conviction that would constitute an indictable offense in Canada or two offenses not arising out of single occurrence that would be an offense;

-committing an act outside Canada that would constitute an indictable offense in Canada;

-committing, on entering Canada, an offense under the criminal code, the IRPA, the Firearms Act, the Customs Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Under Section 38(1) of the IRPA, a foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if they are likely to be a danger to public health, public safety or cause excessive demand on health or social services. Medical examinations can be required, even for some temporary residence visas.

Unlike in the United States, Canadian immigration law treats families as one entity, denying admission based on the fact that a family member who has made a permanent resident application is inadmissible under one of the proscribed grounds.

In Canada, driving while under the influence is considered a felony for immigration purposes and makes the alien inadmissible. This is a huge departure from US immigration law where simple DUI convictions, without more, generally do not make a foreign national inadmissible or deportable. In determining inadmissibility for a DUI conviction that occurred in Canada, the punishment outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code is controlling. For foreign DUI convictions, it must equate to one of the categories in section 36(2).

Pursuant to the Canadian Criminal Code (section 253(1)), operating a motor vehicle or having the care or control of a motor vehicle, whether in motion or not, while impaired by alcohol or drugs or after consuming enough alcohol such that the blood alcohol content is .08 or above is classified as an impaired driving offense. Driving while impaired is an indictable offense or one that is punishable conviction and is liable for a minimum fine of $1,000 for a first offense, a minimum of 30 days imprisonment for a second offense and 120 days more for each subsequent offense. If prosecuted as an indictment (felony), the driver can be sentenced to up to five years; if prosecuted as a misdemeanor, the sentence can be up to 18 months.

Canada’s driving under the influence (DUI) law is a divisible offense, meaning it can be prosecuted either as a felony (indictment) or misdemeanor (summary conviction). Strictly speaking, only a felony makes a foreign national inadmissible to Canada. However, when there is a divisible offense, such as the DUI law, it is treated as a felony for immigration purposes. Thus, most US driving under the influence convictions would render the offender inadmissible to Canada without a pardon.

Consider, if you will, the list of US citizens who are likely barred from entering Canada due to driving under the influence convictions. Those unwelcome up north include Paris Hilton, President George W. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney, Ray Liotta, and Mel Gibson. The little matter of being completely inadmissible to a country that borders ours proved problematic when George Bush needed to enter Canada to carry on the business of our nation.

To get a pardon (the equivalent of the US immigration waiver) for a foreign conviction, the foreign national can apply for a “approval of rehabilitation”, or permanent waiver, at least five years after the end of the imposed sentence. This differs from US law in that some criminal convictions are waivable immediately upon the showing of extreme hardship. The Approval of Rehabilitation can be obtained at the Canadian visa offices in Buffalo, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York or Seattle. To qualify, the alien must show a stable lifestyle and that he is unlikely to be involved in future criminal activity. Factors include remorse for the criminal activity, acceptance of responsibility, change in lifestyle and stability in career and family life. This is much more broad, and arguably easier to prove, than the 601 hardship waiver in the United States. The 601 waiver requires a showing of extreme hardship to a qualifying US citizen or lawful permanent resident family member.

If convicted of a single, minor, offense outside Canada, including a simple DUI, the person is eligible for “deemed rehabilitation” after ten years. If there is a compelling reason to visit, the foreign national can apply for a temporary resident permit which will temporarily waive the ground of inadmissibility.

Just how the immigration laws of the United States and Canada can affect citizens on both sides of the border is illustrated in the story of Janeane Ardiel and David Williams, newlyweds who cannot live together as husband and wife but rather must limit physical interaction to brief meetings at the Peace Arch on the US-Canadian border.

Williams, an American with a DUI conviction, is barred from entering Canada based on his criminal conviction. Ardiel, a Canadian whom US immigration officials feels has immigrant intent, cannot enter the US as a tourist to visit her husband. After being denied entry by US officials, Ardiel started the legal process to obtain her green card, however the wait can take up to a year. In the meantime, the couple’s sole interaction occurs at a metal picnic table in a no man’s land between the two countries, probably under the watchful (invisible) eye of border patrol agents.

Williams and Ardiel are not the first couple to run into immigration issues, however, as evidenced by the fact that the site is a common meeting point for separated couples. Canadians and Americans can visit the park without breaking the law or crossing the border into the neighboring country. Williams and Ardiel’s story illustrates the facility of the long-held belief that spouses of US citizens are automatically entitled to live and work in the Unite States or, at the very least, have free access to visit the US citizen spouse. When a US immigration official believes that a visitor has immigrant intent, he or she will be barred from entering the United States and told to go get the proper visa. Depending on the circumstances surrounding the attempted entry, the personal may also incur a misrepresentation charge which will need to be waived by immigration officials.

While I fully support Canada’s right to exclude whomever they’d like from their great nation, I believe a little bit if quid pro quo is in order here. Therefore, would all Canadians who live here and/or work in American jobs and have a felony conviction or DUI proceed immediately to the nearest exit?

It will be interesting to see how Canada deals with criminal issues for visitors coming to watch the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver in mid-February. Given that, historically, Americans have sometimes been able to cross the border into Canada with just a waive to the Canadian border patrol agent, a real danger exists that prospective Olympic spectators from the US will not research admissibility to Canada in advance and will be turned away at the border. Neither the Olympic organizers nor the Canadian government seems to going out of their way to warn unwary travelers about Canada’s rather strict anti-crime immigration policy. Cost of hotels, transportation and tickets to Olympic events? Thousands. Value of visiting the Canadian Embassy’s website to review admissibility rules for Americans before you go? Priceless.

Source

http://www.tdn.com/news/article_d89572e4-a18d-54f9-ab97-059a9cacbd04.html

Many of my immigration attorney peers have barely hidden, or even completely transparent, contempt for United States immigration laws and the people who administer them. Some practitioners feel that we should have no border, that everyone who wants to come should be able to come, and that we should never ever “tear families apart” by deporting someone or barring their admission, no matter how dangerous or undesirable they are. That’s not me.

On the flip side, some immigration reform advocates label all aliens as criminals and feel that we should kick ‘em all out, lock the place down, and never interact with another foreign national again. That’s not me either. I’m somewhere in the middle. I believe that a sovereign nation has the duty to regulate its border in such a way does not harm it’s citizens or threaten its future existence by allowing terrorists into the country. We do not have room for everyone who wants to live in America, so exclusions need to be made. Thus, we get to be choosy. However, I believe that we treat certain individuals, such as those suffering from medical or psychological disorders, much more harshly than they deserve to be treated.

Like many social issues in the United States, immigration ignites passions on both sides of the aisle. But, compared to other civil rights movements like race or gender, some laws which regulate immigration in America do not reflect modern norms and need to be overhauled. Take HIV, a communicable disease whose mode of transmission was nailed down at least two decades ago; persons infected with the HIV virus were inadmissible to the United States up until…a few months ago. When the ban was enacted the public health risk of HIV was admittedly serious enough to warrant it, if only because no one knew for certain how it spread. But, even in the face of new evidence that the risk of transmission from casual contact was slim, the law was never repealed. How many thousands of individuals were made to feel the devastation of being told, “you’re not worthy of coming to the US” simply because our government was too lazy to, essentially, update a spreadsheet. And don’t get me started on the fact that being gay or having an extramarital affair could prevent you from becoming a naturalized US citizen. Still.

Drug Addiction & Alcohol Abuse

The same complaint can be made about the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics by the INA and, to a larger extent, the people that make and implement the federal immigration laws. Over the past 10 years, states have turned the traditional way of handling drug addicts who commit addiction-related crime on its head. Gone are the days of mandatory jail sentences for drug offenders and zero tolerance for recidivism. Judges recognize that crime that occurs in conjunction with or to facilitate drug abuse will not stop until the abuser stops using. Jail does not work for these individuals, either because drugs can be obtained behind bars or because temporarily blocking access to drugs during a period of incarceration does nothing to help reduce the addiction; many start using again immediately upon release. Instead of sentencing addicted criminals to jail, many states sentence drug addicts to treatment, with reduced or eliminated criminal sanctions upon successful completion of the program. Studies show that the treatment model is more successful than the incarceration model in reducing recidivism.

However, substance abusers are treated particularly harshly under the federal immigration system; simply admitting to having been under the influence of an illegal drug can bar you permanently from immigrating to the United States. Although a few immigration laws recognize that drug or alcohol addiction is a disease, the major provisions regulating inadmissibility, deportability and naturalization continue to treat substance abusers like criminals. Given that be labeled by immigration authorities as a criminal, by itself, is not the same as a conviction in criminal court, why should someone care if they are deemed to be a “criminal” alien by immigration officials?

Criminal convictions or a history of criminal activity can have dire consequences for non-citizens who are in the US or want to come to the US. Removal of criminal aliens is a top priority for the United States government, and ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) in particular. In 2007, ICE removed 275,00 aliens and initiated 165,000 new removal proceedings under the Criminal Alien Program. While aliens who suffer from strictly medical disorders, such as cancer or diabetes, escape the focus of ICE’s removal program, those who suffer with substance abuse can be deported as criminals under certain provisions of immigration law. Criminal defense counsel must be adept at advising clients on immigration matters, especially on the consequences of certain convictions or sentences under state and federal law. Conversely, immigration attorneys must know how certain criminal matters can effect a client’s immigration status or immigration benefit eligibility prior to filing a benefit application and exposing the client to potential issues.

It is important to understand that, unless someone is a US citizen, they are never completely insulated from running afoul of the US immigration system. A person’s eligibility to visit, live in or work in the United States is examined over and over again at various points in the immigration process. In addition, if an immigration official makes a mistake and admits someone who was actually inadmissible, immigration benefits can be stripped and the person can be deported.

Given this temporary nature of immigration benefits, it may seem that all eligible foreign nationals should apply for US citizenship as soon as they become eligible. However, given that applying for citizenship allows immigration officials to, once again, examine issues related to ineligibility, deportability and good moral character, it is essential to consult with an immigration attorney prior to filing a naturalization application. An immigration attorney can help identify issues that could not only make the person ineligible for citizenship, but could also get them deported.

ADMISSIBILITY

Unless you are an American citizen, you need permission to visit, enter or live in the United States. Although your right to be in America is re-evaluated at various times, all aliens must undergo an admissibility evaluation by an officer of the Customs & Border Patrol (CBP) when attempting to enter the United States at a designated port of entry. Even if you have been approved for and received a visa at a foreign consulate, United States CBP has the authority to determine that you cannot enter the United States and can turn you right around. A visa gives you the right to knock on the door; CBP decides whether or not to let you in. When evaluating whether or not a foreign national can enter, immigration officials refer to section 212 of the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA). For example, some applicants who have drug-related crimes or have been found to be addicts due to drug or alcohol issues may be barred from entering the United States.

DEPORTABILITY & REMOVABILITY

After a foreign national has been admitted, he or she does not have the right to stay here permanently. Events such as expiration of a visa, commission of a crime, or commission of an immigration violation can cause the United States government to roll up the welcome mat and send the alien home. Known as removal, or deportation, the process of determining if someone has the legal right to remain in the United States is regulated by section 237 of the INA. These deportation grounds determine an alien’s right to be in the United States unless, or until, the alien becomes an American citizen through naturalization.

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER

Certain immigration benefits are so valuable to a foreign national that not only must they overcome the grounds of inadmissibility and deportability, but they also must show that they have good moral character. Good moral character is more than just being a nice person. It is a legal term of art in immigration law and is a confusing concept for aliens, practitioners and even immigration officials to understand. Examples of benefits that require good moral character include naturalization, cancellation of removal and certain forms of relief for victims of domestic violence.

Figuring out exactly how the three major eligibility provisions of the INA (inadmissibility, deportability and good moral character) deal with drug addicts and alcoholics requires time, patience and organization. It also requires a fundamental understanding of the two major ways that drug addicts and alcoholics can be classified, sometimes simultaneously: those who are regulated by the medical provisions of immigration law and those who are regulated by criminal provisions of immigration law. Aside from the US tax code, US immigration law is probably the most complicated set of statutes and regulations that a lawyer has to navigate.

To complicated matters further, more than one section of the Immigration and Nationality Act may apply to a particular situation. For instance, a person applying for citizenship through naturalization must meet good moral character requirements (as discussed in Section 101(f) of the INA). However, in addition, the applicant will also be subject to the grounds of deportability under section 237 and, if any of those grounds apply, will be given a demand to appear at immigration court for deportation proceedings instead of an invitation to attend a citizenship ceremony. For adjustment of status, applicant must satisfy both the grounds of inadmissiblity found in INA 212, as well as the deportation grounds of section 237.

Any evaluation of an alien’s US immigration status or eligibility for benefits should begin with a thorough and comprehensive evaluation of his or her medical, criminal and immigration background. In addition to interviewing the client extensively about all facets of their background, copies of an FBI fingerprint check, arrest reports, sentencing reports, court transcripts, court dispositions, probation reports, and substance abuse treatment reports should be obtained so that the immigration attorney can get a very clear picture of how any criminal or medical issues will affect the immigration case.

Many state medical societies are members of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, whose goal it is to encourage states to create and maintain confidential PHPs to monitor and rehabilitate drug- addicted and alcoholic physicians. However, California is currently not one of the member states. California’s own diversion program was disbanded last year. Given the sheer number of licensed doctors in the state, failure to have an effective diversion program for doctors in crisis is most troubling.

In 1980, California created a physician Diversion Program, one of the first of its kind. The goal of the program was to “divert” doctors from the disciplinary path, if their wrongdoing stemmed from substance abuse impairment, while protecting the public from physician malpractice. Rather than taking a role in actively treating doctors who suffered from substance abuse issues, the program monitored participation in outside addiction treatment centers and treatment programs. In essence, each participant was monitored by a case manager, who ensured that the doctor was complying with program requirements, getting treatment for the addiction, and not practicing medicine while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Funding for administration of the program, almost $1.5 million annually, came from doctors’ license renewal fees. From 1980 to 2008, California’s doctor diversion program had nearly 1800 participants.

Entrance into the diversion program happened either voluntarily through non-disciplinary related self-referral or as an alternative to discipline during an investigation or during probation. Only those participating as a condition of probation (roughly 15%) were not protected by the strict confidentiality rules. Patients were not entitled to know that his or her doctor was being monitored for substance abuse.

Each participant signed a contract that required them to adhere to several conditions including being evaluated by a committee, undergoing random drug testing, enrolling in an in-patient addiction treatment center, undergoing psychiatric care, attending group therapy and AA sessions, and being subject to monitoring visits at their place of employment. The Diversion Program’s medical board case managers were charged with monitoring the compliance.

Only those doctors who were deemed unsafe to practice medicine were ineligible to work. If a drug test came back positive, the evaluation committee would determine whether there had been a relapse. If so, it had the option of terminating the physician or ordering further in-patient treatment (this was normally the case for a first offense). Patients were not notified of the doctor’s status, even after he or she had violated the terms of the program. This confidential aspect of the program would prove to be its most controversial.

Doctors were required to participate in the program for a minimum of five years, with three years being the minimum sobriety period required for consideration of release from the contract. If a doctor was ejected from the program prior to completion, the Enforcement Program was notified so that disciplinary charges could be filed. Ultimately, the program was unable to adequately monitor plan participants to the satisfaction of state regulators.

Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a former insurance defense attorney now specializing in immigration. She is licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.

When considering the consequences a DUI will likely have on a client’s case, it is always necessary to explore the need for rehabilitation at a treatment center. Enrolling in an addiction treatment center is often desirable when the immigration officer has discretion to decide your eligibility for an immigration benefit or you are required to file a hardship waiver due to the DUI.

Generally, a single misdemeanor DUI (typically one which doesn’t involve bodily injury or death) is unlikely to have insurmountable negative consequences for an alien already in the US or hoping to come to the US. However, that does not mean that the immigration office will see your DUI as “no big deal.”

A crime involving moral turpitude is a ground of inadmissibility to the US and could result in deportation, denial of a visa or green card, or denial of entry into the US at a port of entry. Although the situation sounds dire, it is possible to waive this ground of inadmissibility with an immigration hardship waiver. In order to be considered a CIMT, a violation of a law must require that the offender had the necessary intent. Most states’ DUI laws have no intent requirement; you are either driving under the influence or not. However, certain aggravating factors, such as driving without a license, can turn a simple DUI into something more serious.

Aggravated felonies are another class of criminal convictions that can make someone deportable or inadmissible to the United States. Whether or not any type of criminal conviction (even a misdemeanor) is an aggravated felony for immigration purposes depends on how USCIS interprets the underlying criminal activity in relation to federal, not state, law. These crimes are usually violent in nature or are of a specific type and the sentence for which is a year or more in jail. Clients who incur multiple DUIs run the risk of becoming aggravated felons in the eyes of US immigration officers, especially when the combined sentences could result in jail time of more than a year.

When it comes to citizenship, everything a green hard holder does during their required period of residence is evaluated when it comes to deciding whether or not the applicant has the good moral character necessary for becoming a US citizen. In fact, officers can consider an applicant’s entire criminal history when conducting the evaluation. While you cannot be approved for citizenship while still on probation, sometimes it is wise to wait for an additional period of time after end ends before applying for citizenship so that the applicant can show good moral character from the time the probation ended. Another strategy is to show a commitment to safe and sober driving by enrolling at an addiction treatment center. A naturalization attorney can help decide the best strategy for your particular case.

Another area of concern for those convicted of DUI arises when the client must file a waiver of an inadmissibility bar. Even if the DUI itself did not trigger the bar, USCIS officers are permitted to investigate and consider an applicant’s entire background when making the waiver decision. For instance, for a 601 waiver, the applicant must show that his inadmissibility to the US would pose an extreme hardship on a US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. However the analysis does not end at the hardship determination. The officer is further obligated to balance the hardship against any aggravating factors (such as criminal history) and with any mitigating factors (such as voluntary enrollment in an alcohol treatment center or other acts showing rehabilitation).

Finally, for those with multiple DUI convictions, care must be taken when attending any sort of immigration medical exam. At the exam, a doctor or psychiatrist is permitted to inquire about drug or alcohol issues, especially if there have been multiple DUIs. If the medical professional feels that the alcohol issue is serious enough, her or she could cause the applicant to be considered a habitual drunkard and, thus, not admissible to the United States.

Millie Anne Cavanaugh, Esq. is a Los Angeles immigration lawyer and former insurance defense attorney. She is licensed to practice law in California and Massachusetts. The information contained herein is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as a solicitation for your business or as legal advice on any subject matter. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of this information without seeking independent legal advice.