In New Jersey, a DWI is most commonly associated with alcohol. However, that is not the only way an individual can be charged with driving while under the influence. Under New Jersey statute 39:4-50, the law encompasses driving under the influence of not only intoxicating liquor, but also narcotics, hallucinogenic or habit-producing drugs. In other words, operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana can give rise to a DWI charge just as easily as driving impaired due to alcohol.
With few exceptions, leaving the United States while a green card case is pending can be fatal to one's case. In general, departure from the United States without an advance parole document normally results in a denial of the adjustment of status petition. USCIS will determine that the individual has abandoned the application. Moreover, in some cases, if an applicant has overstayed and accrued too much "unlawful presence," he or she may trigger a three or ten-year bar from returning (depending on the length of the unlawful presence). So, in most cases, if an individual foresees that he/she will need to travel outside the US during the pendency of an adjustment of status case, advance parole should be strongly considered.
In a disturbing development, the Attorney General indicated in Matter of Thomas and Thompson, 27 I & N Dec. 556 (A.G. 2019), that he will be considering and ultimately rendering a decision on the immigration impact of convictions that are subsequently altered. At issue is "whether, and under what circumstances, judicial alteration of a criminal conviction or sentence-whether labeled 'vacatur,' 'modification,' 'clarification,' or some other term-should be taken into consideration in determining the immigration consequences of the conviction." Put plainly, the AG will be examining what effect a modified, vacated, or overturned conviction will have on whether someone is deportable, inadmissible, or qualifies for some sort of relief or benefit. This issue is mostly encountered in the context of a "PCR" or post-conviction relief application where a criminal case is subsequently re-opened. Once a case is reopened, the conviction is normally vacated, and the charge(s) and/or punishment are disposed of in an alternate manner, sometimes in the form of dismissal, amendment of charges, or reduction of sentence. Depending on what result is arrived at, an individual's immigration situation may change. Someone who may have formerly been held deportable on the basis of a crime involving moral turpitude may no longer be removable if the underlying conviction is vacated or changed into an offense that is not one involving moral turpitude. Ever since the Supreme Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky in 2010, droves of foreign nationals with criminal convictions have attempted to stave off deportation by reopening their criminal cases due to ineffective assistance of counsel to warn them of the immigration consequences of their convictions. Some have been successful; some not.
Applicants for immigrant visas may be surprised to see a new question on the electronic DS 260 application pertaining to social media. As of May 31, 2019, the immigrant visa application (and reportedly the electronic DS 160 nonimmigrant visa application as well) now feature arguably invasive questions requesting information regarding social media platforms used within the last five years. Applicants are requested to list their usernames (or "handles") for the following sites/apps/programs: