Ramos Da Silva v. Attorney General
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
948 F. 3d 629 (2020)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Ludimilla Ramos Da Silva (plaintiff) moved from Brazil to the United States on a visa, which she overstayed. Several years later, Da Silva married a United States citizen, Aziim Leach, who subjected her to extensive emotional and physical abuse. Leach also engaged in extramarital affairs, one of which came to the attention of Da Silva, who confronted and punched the mistress in two altercations. As a result, Da Silva was convicted of assault and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Later, the United States government (defendant) charged Da Silva with removability from the country. Da Silva sought cancellation of removal as a battered spouse under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Da Silva’s eligibility for cancellation was denied by both the immigration judge and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which reasoned that Da Silva’s assault of Leach’s mistress defeated the VAWA exception’s requirement of good moral character. The BIA thus ordered Da Silva’s removal. Da Silva petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for review, citing a further VAWA exception for acts or crimes that were committed in connection to the cruelty suffered by the noncitizen. The government countered that the phrase “connected to” was ambiguously broad.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
