Aggressive Defense Strategies for Criminal Charges & Deportation Risk for Non-Citizens · Free Case Evaluation · 24/7 Emergency Availability
28+ Years Experience
Expert in Detroit Courts
36th District & Third Circuit Court
Recognized for Excellence in Criminal Defense Representation
Protecting Non-Citizens from Removal Through Strategic Criminal Defense
Federal immigration law contains a sweeping set of provisions that render non-citizens deportable based on criminal convictions. These grounds of deportability are codified at 8 USC § 1227(a)(2) and operate independently of — and often more harshly than — the state criminal penalty. A non-citizen who receives probation or a suspended sentence for a misdemeanor theft conviction may walk out of the Wayne County courthouse with no jail time, yet face mandatory detention and removal proceedings initiated by ICE the same week. The severity of the immigration consequence is not proportional to the severity of the state criminal sentence; it is determined entirely by the federal statutory classification of the offense.
The most consequential category of deportable offenses is the "aggravated felony," defined at 8 USC § 1101(a)(43). Despite its name, an aggravated felony under immigration law includes many offenses that are charged as misdemeanors under state law. Drug trafficking (including delivery of marijuana regardless of amount), theft with a sentence of one year or more, fraud with a loss to the victim of $10,000 or more, sexual abuse of a minor, and murder are all aggravated felonies. A non-citizen convicted of an aggravated felony is deportable, permanently inadmissible, ineligible for cancellation of removal, and subject to a permanent bar to future admission to the United States. There is no form of discretionary relief available once an aggravated felony conviction is established.
Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) form the second major deportation ground. Under INA § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), a single CIMT committed within five years of admission and carrying a potential sentence of one year or more renders an LPR deportable. A second CIMT conviction at any time after admission also triggers deportability. The definition of moral turpitude is notoriously vague and has been developed through an extensive body of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) precedent. Fraud, theft, assault with intent to cause serious bodily injury, domestic violence, and sexual offenses have all been held to involve moral turpitude. Critically, even a crime that does not result in imprisonment — or one that is dismissed after probation — may constitute a CIMT conviction under INA § 101(a)(48) if the defendant admitted guilt.
Attorney Maze approaches every non-citizen criminal case by first identifying the deportation risk of each potential disposition and then negotiating the most immigration-safe resolution consistent with the defendant's interests in the criminal case. This often means accepting a plea to a charge that carries a greater state penalty but a lesser immigration consequence — a trade-off that non-citizen clients frequently find worthwhile when properly advised. Where a conviction is unavoidable, meticulous attention to sentence structure can sometimes prevent an offense from crossing the threshold into aggravated felony territory. If you are a non-citizen facing criminal charges in Detroit, call Attorney Maze immediately to ensure your immigration status is protected throughout the criminal process.
The framework governing criminal grounds of deportability has been shaped by decades of statutory amendments, BIA adjudication, and circuit court decisions. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) dramatically expanded the aggravated felony definition and eliminated most forms of discretionary relief for non-citizens with criminal histories. NACDL has consistently opposed the "mandatory deportation without discretion" framework that these statutes created, arguing that the absence of individualized assessment violates fundamental principles of due process and proportionate punishment. Nonetheless, the statutory regime remains in place, and criminal defense attorneys must navigate it on behalf of their clients every day.
The Supreme Court's decision in Sessions v Dimaya, 584 US 148 (2018), provided some limitation on the government's expansive use of the "crime of violence" aggravated felony category, striking down the residual clause of 18 USC § 16(b) as unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause. This ruling — which relied on Johnson v United States, 576 US 591 (2015), which invalidated a similar residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act — removed a frequently used basis for aggravated felony deportation and created opportunities for post-conviction relief for non-citizens who had been deported on crime-of-violence grounds. Defense attorneys in Michigan's Sixth Circuit can invoke Dimaya to challenge overbroad crime-of-violence designations in removal proceedings.
The "modified categorical approach" and the "categorical approach," first articulated in Taylor v United States, 495 US 575 (1990) and further developed in Descamps v United States, 570 US 254 (2013), are critical analytical tools in immigration-consequence litigation. These approaches require courts to determine whether a state criminal statute is a categorical match to a federal deportation ground — and if it is not (because the state statute is broader than the federal definition), the conviction cannot serve as a predicate for deportation regardless of the underlying facts. Michigan criminal statutes must be analyzed under this framework, and in many cases, creative application of the categorical approach can defeat a deportation ground even where a conviction has been entered.
In Moncrieffe v Holder, 569 US 184 (2013), the Supreme Court held that a conviction for sharing marijuana did not categorically constitute "drug trafficking" as an aggravated felony because the state statute covered conduct that federal law treated as a lesser offense. This decision and its progeny illustrate how careful statutory analysis can protect non-citizens from the harshest immigration consequences of criminal convictions. Attorney Maze's defense strategy on behalf of non-citizens incorporates this level of statutory analysis from the moment of charging, ensuring that every opportunity to avoid a deportation-triggering disposition is identified and pursued.
As a Detroit criminal defense attorney, I provide specialized expertise in Detroit's court systems. I understand the specific procedures, judges, and prosecutors in Detroit courts, giving my clients a distinct advantage in their criminal defense cases.
Detroit Criminal Defense Attorney
William Maze is an established Detroit Michigan attorney with nearly 28 years of criminal defense experience. He has represented thousands of satisfied clients across Michigan and maintains a national reputation as one of the leading criminal defense attorneys in the country.
Attorney Maze is a qualified expert witness in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and breath alcohol testing. His expertise includes:
Subscribe to @DUIMAZE for comprehensive criminal defense videos, case breakdowns, and legal strategy discussions.
If you are facing criminal charges, call William Maze today to schedule an appointment to review your case. Available 24/7 for emergencies.
Expert Criminal Defense Representation in Detroit's Judicial System
Primary Court for Detroit Criminal Cases
421 Madison Street, Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 965-2200
Felony Cases & Appeals from Detroit
5301 Russell Street, Detroit, MI 48211
(313) 224-5261
As a criminal defense attorney in Detroit, I provide specialized representation tailored to Detroit's unique legal landscape. For many years, my downtown Detroit office was located in the Ford Building on the same floor where Clarence Darrow mounted his famous defense of Dr. Ossian Sweet. In the famous 1925 Sweet Trials, Darrow successfully argued against racial prejudice in a murder case, asserting a Black family's right to live in a white neighborhood, a landmark civil rights victory. Darrow took the case after the Sweets were attacked in their new Detroit home, leading to a deadly confrontation and a trial that highlighted racial tensions in Detroit.
Each court has its own procedures, judges, and local rules. My extensive experience with Detroit's court system includes:
I provide criminal defense services throughout Detroit including:
If you're facing criminal charges in Detroit or Wayne County, contact my office today at (313) 792-8800 for a free, confidential consultation.
Get Expert Legal Advice for Your Detroit Criminal Case
Facing criminal charges in Detroit can be overwhelming. Contact me today for a free, confidential consultation at my Detroit office.
24/7 Emergency: (313) 792-8800
Office Hours: Mon-Fri 9am-5pm
Weekend/Evening: Appointments Available