In the matter of the Dimaya v. Sessions case, I find that Dimaya has presented and demonstrated a more clear, constitutional argument, therefore, the supreme court should rule in their favor. In the case, it is understood under 18 U.S.C. § 16, that a crime of violence law is an offensive felony that involves a substantial risk of physical force against a person or property(crime of violence). However, in this specific case, the crime of violence law shouldn’t affect Dimaya. What Dimaya was convicted for showed no evidence of him every enacting any physical violence upon any individual. . Therefore, I think the court case should favor with Dimaya due to the government's failure to fully interpret the definition of this law. Examination of Evidence
Dimaya committed and was convicted for two burglary accounts. Yet, the court stated that Dimaya had committed a crime of violence act within the boundaries of his burglary. It is stated that if any…show more content… Degeorge case(Kevin Johnson). In this case, it talked about the grave nature of deportation and how court's should take fair notice to any criminal convictions. Furthermore, what was so compelling and significant about this case was how a vagueness challenge was enacted within the case(Kevin Johnson). However, at the end of the case, the court rejected the challenge to an immigration law. They then stated that a lawful removal for an immigrant is allowed for any crime deemed as moral turpitude. Therefore, if the court deems the crime to be incredibly horrific and wicked, they are lawfully allowed to deport a immigrant. Although this piece of evidence was strong against Dismaya, it still wasn’t able to fully convince me. I say this because the evidence states how it is allowed to deport an immigrant only if the crime is deemed as morally turpitude. Do two accounts of burglary without any violence committed really seem so morally
