DC Court Denies Sentence Cut for Man Facing Deportation

What if a judge refuses to reduce your prison sentence partly because you're about to be deported — and you never got a fair chance to argue that point? That is exactly what Omar Euceda faced. On October 1, 2026, the DC Court of Appeals upheld the denial of his request for early release, and the ruling sets a precedent that could affect other immigrants in similar situations.

What happened in this case

Euceda, a Salvadoran national, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and attempted robbery for a 2003 shooting in Washington, DC. He was sentenced to 24 years in prison. After serving more than 17 years, he applied for a sentence reduction under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA) — a DC law that allows people who committed crimes before age 25 to ask a court to shorten their sentence if they are no longer a danger and if justice supports release. Euceda was 23 at the time of the offense, making him eligible to apply.

Euceda raised three arguments on appeal. First, he said the trial court failed to give proper weight to his young age at the time of the crime. Second, he argued the court ignored that he could not complete many prison programs because he speaks very little English. Third, he said the court did not properly consider his pending deportation when deciding whether he posed a danger to the community. The DC Court of Appeals, in a decision written by Associate Judge Shanker, rejected all three arguments. On the deportation point specifically, the court found that Euceda had not properly raised the argument at the trial level — a legal concept called forfeiture — so the appeals court only reviewed it for obvious error and found none. The court did offer clarifying guidance on how IRAA factors one and three should be applied in future cases, which may help other applicants.

The ruling is a reminder that how you argue your case at the trial court level matters enormously. Arguments not properly raised below are very hard to win on appeal. For immigrants facing both incarceration and removal proceedings, the intersection of criminal law and deportation defense is especially complex. Euceda's background — including abuse by his mother in El Salvador, witnessing civil war violence, and being kidnapped by a gang — was part of his IRAA motion, but it was not enough to overcome the court's findings.

What to do if you are in a similar situation

• If you or a family member is serving a sentence and may be eligible for IRAA relief (offense committed before age 25, at least 15 years served), consult an immigration attorney and a criminal defense attorney — you need both, because the two areas of law overlap.
• Raise every argument — including how deportation affects the danger analysis — at the trial court level. Do not save arguments for appeal. Courts will not consider issues you did not properly present below.
• If English is a barrier to completing prison programs, document this clearly in any IRAA motion. The October 2026 ruling offers new guidance that courts must consider language access when evaluating program participation under IRAA factor three.
• If you are facing removal proceedings at the same time as a sentence reduction hearing, ask your attorney how to coordinate both cases — the timing and arguments in one can affect the other.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Appealing to the BIA”.