Ndoromo v. Barr
In brief
The Supreme Court declined to hear Ndoromo’s petition, so it did not decide whether his conviction counts as a crime involving moral turpitude or whether he qualifies for protection from removal.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- This case involves a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Ndoromo against Barr, originating from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The specific legal details of the dispute are not provided in the available record.
- Who it affects
- The order ended Supreme Court review for Ndoromo without deciding whether his conviction affects his immigration case or whether he qualifies for protection from removal.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The dispute grew out of an immigration case involving Ndoromo’s Minnesota conviction for second-degree assault.
Question presented
1. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in finding that Petitioner’s conviction for second-degree assault under Minn. Stat. § 609.222, subd. 1, is a crime involving moral turpitude. 2. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in denying Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court’s action on this petition is complete, and this order provides no further Supreme Court ruling on the immigration questions.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.