Essentially recent case law ie., Padilla v. Kentucky (citations) has held that a criminal defense attorney must protect against harsh immigration consequences.  The Moncrieffe decision is helpful to criminal defense attorneys because it reaffirms a tool that savvy criminal defense attorneys have long utilized in defending non-citizen defendants, keeping the record of conviction as vague and generic as possible.  A good example is instead of pleading guilty or no contest to a domestic violence charge of CA PC 243(e)1 or CA PC 273.5, I attempt to bargain for a straight battery charge of CA PC 242 because of the lack of domestic violence language in the statute.

With a generic and vague record of conviction, an immigrant defendant will not fall into a category that will cause harsh immigration consequences.  Federal courts have looked to determine whether the crime an immigrant was convicted of categorically fits with the generic federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony in immigration law Gonzalez v. Duenas- Alvarez (citations).

Further courts have found a categorical match of a state crime to an aggravated crime in federal law only if a conviction of the state offense “necessarily” involved facts equating to the generic federal aggravated felony offense.  Shepard v. United States (citations).  The current trend in federal law to require a more specific and analytical approach in considering whether an immigrant with a “criminal” record should be deported is good for our country since it requires a more holistic approach in determining who should be deported and who should not be deported.