Roberto Garces v. United States Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that immigration proceedings are not criminal trials and involve a considerably less stringent standard of proof
• concluding that the fact that a conviction has been vacated “for whatever reason” does not bar immigration officials from considering the facts that led to the conviction
• holding that plea carried “little or no probative weight” where record lacked indication that defendant made any admissions, and Florida law permitted defen dants to plead guilty without swearing to underlying facts
• explaining that in these kinds of cases, “the jurisdictional question merges into our consideration of the merits”
• observing that neither case law nor Fed. R.Evid. 410 “categorically bars the BIA from considering [defendant’s] withdrawn plea for any purpose”
• finding that, absent corroboration, police reports were not sufficient evidence to establish removability where the “arrest reports state the police officers’ conclusions . . . rather than recording their observations of facts to show guilt”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).