Singh v. Holder

14 Citing cases

  1. Nguyen v. Garland

    996 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 2021)

    Section 1101(a)(48)(A) defines "conviction" as a "formal judgment of guilt." Mr. Nguyen takes the idea that a formal judgment of guilt requires a judge's signature from Singh v. Holder , 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir. 2009). In that case, the panel was trying to determine whether the date of conviction was the date the jury entered a verdict or the date a judge imposed a sentence.

  2. Puente Perez v. Garland

    No. 20-60625 (5th Cir. May. 12, 2022)

    The collateral attacks on the Texas conviction are not properly before us in this context and so the petition as to those claims is denied. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

  3. Ajao v. Barr

    No. 18-60234 (5th Cir. Jul. 26, 2019)

    He may not collaterally attack his criminal convictions in a petition for review. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). He has not shown that his due process rights were violated because he was removed from the United States while his petition for review was pending.

  4. Laryea v. Sessions

    871 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Laryea cannot collaterally attack his conviction in a petition for review. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). Laryea raises two other issues for the first time in this appeal, arguing that (1) his conviction does not render him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because it was not committed within five years of his admission as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) ; and (2) he is eligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction falls within the petty offense exception in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2).

  5. Mendoza-Saenz v. Sessions

    861 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    The record therefore establishes that the court pronounced Saenz's sentence. See Singh v. Holder , 568 F.3d 525, 530 (5th Cir. 2009) (judgment is imposed at time of sentencing); De Vega , 503 F.3d at 48–49.III. Conclusion

  6. United States v. Canelas-Amador

    837 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 8 times
    Invoking lenity where law did not provide a "minimum level of clarity and transparency" and thus "fail[ed] to provide fair notice"

    This similarity has prompted our colleagues on the Second, Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits to conclude that Rule 32(k) sets forth the correct definition of “formal judgment of guilt.” See Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 629 F.3d 1223, 1226–27 (11th Cir. 2011) ; Singh v. Holder , 568 F.3d 525, 530 (5th Cir. 2009) ; Puello v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs. , 511 F.3d 324, 328–29 (2d Cir. 2007) ; Perez v. Elwood , 294 F.3d 552, 562 (3d Cir. 2002). We agree.

  7. Mota-Sanchez v. Holder

    539 F. App'x 453 (5th Cir. 2013)

    Mota may not collaterally attack the legitimacy of his convictions in a petition for review. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the petition for review.

  8. Bent v. Holder

    538 F. App'x 378 (5th Cir. 2013)

    To the extent that Bent challenges the validity of the state conviction, he has not shown that the conviction has been overturned and therefore may not collaterally attack the conviction in this proceeding. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 528 (5th Cir. 2009). Bent's petition for review is DENIED.

  9. Viveiros v. Holder

    692 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Rejecting “out-of-hand the petitioner's suggestion that there was no ‘formal judgment of guilt’ because he was never ultimately punished for his shoplifting crime”

    The finding of guilt coupled with the imposition of a pecuniary sanction constituted a formal judgment of guilt by any measure. See Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. DHS, 629 F.3d 1223, 1226–27 (11th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (holding that “to establish a conviction for immigration purposes, a court must accept a guilty plea or jury verdict, make an adjudication, and impose a sentence”); Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 530–31 (5th Cir.2009) (defining “formal judgment of guilt” by reference to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(k)(1)); see also Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook 220 (12th ed. 2010). The petitioner endeavors to alter this reality by insisting that the subsequent vacation of the $250 fine transmogrifies his case into one in which no sentence was ever imposed.

  10. Forde v. Holder

    No. 09-60893 (5th Cir. Sep. 19, 2011)

    As such, Forde has forfeited his challenge to this alternative holding on appeal, which we affirm. See Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525, 529 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that petitioner's failure to raise an issue with a BIA's determination waives the argument on appeal). PETITION DENIED.