IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AHMAD OTHMAN, § § No. 377, 2022 Petitioner Below, § Appellant, § Court Below—Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § C.A. No. 22X-00395 (S) STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Respondent, § Appellee. Submitted: February 10, 2023 Decided: April 10, 2023 Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR, Justices. ORDER Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and record on appeal, it appears to the Court that: (1) The appellant, Ahmad Othman, filed this appeal from a Superior Court order denying his petition for expungement. After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, we affirm the Superior Court’s denial of the petition and the motion for reargument. (2) In June 2022, Othman filed a petition for expungement of past convictions for which he had received a pardon. He sought expungement because he was in school for criminal justice and planned to get a job as an immigration officer after graduation. The State opposed expungement, contending that the criminal record should remain in place for completion of a proper law enforcement background check. (3) On September 16, 2022, the Superior Court denied the petition. The Superior Court held that Othman had failed to establish manifest injustice as required for discretionary expungement because a law enforcement agency could still review his criminal records in considering his application for employment. The Superior Court also found that Othman was not entitled to discretionary expungement because his multiple traffic violations showed a continuing refusal to abide by the laws of Delaware. (4) On September 30, 2022, Othman filed a motion for reargument. He argued, among other things, that a bank had recently withdrawn a conditional offer of employment based on his criminal record. The Superior Court denied the motion for reargument as untimely. The Superior Court also found that although Othman had shown manifest injustice in his motion for reargument, he still had numerous traffic violations showing a lack of respect for the laws of Delaware. This appeal followed. (5) On appeal, Othman argues that he established manifest injustice in his motion for reargument and that his traffic violations should not preclude expungement of his criminal record. This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on 2 expungement for abuse of discretion.1 A trial court’s discretionary “rulings will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that the rulings were based on unreasonable or capricious grounds.”2 (6) Under Section 4375, Othman could seek discretionary expungement of records of crimes for which he was pardoned. He had the burden of alleging specific facts showing that the continued existence and possible dissemination of information relating to his arrest or conviction caused or could cause circumstances constituting a manifest injustice to him.3 In his petition, Othman tried to satisfy this burden by alleging that his criminal record could interfere with his plans to become an immigration officer. (7) As the Superior Court recognized, a law enforcement agency would still be able to review Othman’s expunged criminal records in considering his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals