Rayford Gill v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that exhaustion in Wisconsin state court was not required where recent decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court made it clear that pursuit of the prisoner’s claims would have been futile
• finding a state conviction dismissed pursuant to state rehabilitative statutory scheme, and not because of any procedural or substantive defect in the conviction, remained a conviction for immigration purposes
• rejecting Lujan-Armendariz’s analysis and noting that every other court that has considered the subject has concluded that state law expungements “do not negate a ‘conviction’ for purposes of immigration law”
• rejecting Lujan-Armendariz’s analysis and noting that every other court that has considered the subject has concluded that state law expungements “do not negate a ‘conviction’ for purposes of immigration law”
• “Gill’s plea of guilty satisfies part (i) of this definition, and the term of probation satisfies part (ii)”
• “It is enough to say that § 3607 has no residual effect on the appropriate characterization of state-law deferred dispositions. These are handled comprehensively, and exclusively, by § 1101(a)(48)(A)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).