immigration

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret the statutory construction of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and ultimately decide how easy it will be for the Government to begin deportation proceedings against criminal aliens. Section 1226(c)(1) provides for the mandatory detention of criminal aliens who commit certain offenses. Mony Preap, an alien with two drug convictions that triggered mandatory detention under § 1226(c), and two other similarly situated aliens contend that, under this statute, the Department of Homeland Security must immediately arrest criminal aliens upon their release from criminal custody in order for mandatory detention to apply. The Government counters that narrowly construing the statute, as Preap proposes, would contradict Congress’s intent to reduce the growing threat to public safety posed by dangerous criminal aliens and their high risk of flight. The outcome of this case has implications for the Government’s ability to detain aliens without a bond hearing under § 1226(c) following their release from criminal custody and affects the ease with which the Government can initiate deportation proceedings against aliens.

Petitioner Panagis Vartelas, a Greek citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded guilty to counterfeiting and was convicted in 1994. In 2003, following a brief trip to Greece, Vartelas received notice to appear for removal proceedings. The immigration judge ordered Vartelas’s deportation, after deeming Vartelas inadmissible under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Vartelas argues that application of this 1996 Act to his 1994 crime violates the presumption against retroactivity and the reasonable expectations he had when entering his guilty plea. Respondent Attorney General Eric Holder argues that Vartelas’s case does not have a retroactive effect because it penalizes acts conducted after the statute’s enactment: Vartelas’s decision to leave and re-enter the United States. This case affects lawful permanent residents who were convicted of crimes prior to the Act’s enactment. The Supreme Court’s decision could restrict their ability to travel internationally, which in turn could damage their ability to maintain family ties or fulfill religious obligations.

In 2002, an Immigration Naturalization Service agent discovered that Juan Resendiz-Ponce was in the United States illegally and had him deported. A year later border patrol agents detained Resendiz-Ponce after he presented false documentation and falsely stated his intended destination. The United States brought suit against Resendiz-Ponce for attempting to re-enter the country after having been previously deported, and he was convicted. While the indictment alleged that Resendiz-Ponce had attempted to re-enter the United States illegally, it did not allege that he presented false documents, made false statements, or performed any other act associated with his alleged attempt. Resendiz-Ponce appealed his conviction, claiming that the indictment’s failure to allege an act introduced a fatal flaw into his trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with this argument and reversed the conviction. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court will determine whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment requires automatic reversal on appeal.

The Supreme Court will consider whether a state offense that is “described in” a federal criminal statute must meet all elements of the statute, including jurisdictional requirements, to constitute an aggravated felony. See Brief for Petitioner, Jorge Luna Torres at 2. Petitioner Jorge Luna Torres argues that under the plain meaning of the aggravated felony definition, the New York offense of arson is not described in the federal arson offense because it does not satisfy the federal statute’s interstate commerce requirement. See id. But U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch contends that it is reasonable to interpret that a state offense may constitute an aggravated felony under the relevant federal offense, even if the conduct does not meet a jurisdictional element. See Brief for Respondent, Loretta E. Lynch at 17. The Court’s ruling will clarify the definition of “aggravated felony,” and impact the relationship between immigration law and criminal law, particularly with respect to immigrants facing deportation. See Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. (“NACDL”), in Support of the Petitioner at 1.

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which temporarily banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from immigrating to the United States. Various states challenged the executive order on grounds of religious discrimination. In March of 2017, the president signed Executive Order 13780, and in September 2017 he issued a third iteration of the order via presidential proclamation. The proclamation affects the immigration and visa rights of nationals of eight different Muslim-majority countries. President Trump argues that the proclamation is a proper application of his executive authority, and that it accords with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Hawaii contends that the proclamation is motivated in part by religious discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. The outcome of the case could significantly impact existing immigration policy, as well as determine the scope of the Executive’s power to implement and enforce such policy.

The “stop-time rule” states that an alien’s period of continuous physical presence is interrupted after the government serves the alien with a notice to appear.  The Court will determine in this case whether a notice to appear must include the time and location of the immigration removal proceedings in order to invoke the stop-time rule. Pereira argues that the statutory text, structure, and legislative history indicate that a notice to appear must contain all of the information listed in its statutory definition and contends that the Court should not defer to the interpretation of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) because the BIA’s interpretation is unreasonable. Sessions counters that the statutory text, legislative history, and purpose demonstrate that a valid notice to appear does not need to contain such information and asserts that the Court should defer to the BIA’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because it will impact the ability of certain immigrants to cancel their removal and may affect the practices of immigration courts nationwide.

When Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA") in 1996, it did so partly with the intention of making it more difficult for aliens to remain in United States when an agency had deemed they must be removed; the IIRIRA thus contained stricter standards for judicial courts to follow when overruling an agency and allowing such aliens to remain in the country. At issue is how far Congress went in creating stricter standards, and which traditional standards it maintained. Petitioner Jean Marc Nken, an alien who applied for asylum in the U.S., was ordered to leave the country, and filed a motion for a stay of removal pending appeal of his case. The Fourth Circuit, instead of applying a traditional, four-factored test to determine whether to grant the stay, applied Section 1252(f)(2) of IIRIRA, which bars judges from enjoining the removal of aliens unless the alien can clearly show that the removal is prohibited by law. Petitioner appealed, contending that Section 1252(f)(2) was not intended to apply to motions for stays, and instead was only meant to apply to motions for injunctions. How the Supreme Court rules will determine the proper way to interpret IIRIRA, determine how much power judicial courts have over federal agencies once they have made decisions in aliens' cases, and impact both national security concerns  and petitioners fighting the decision to deport them.

Divna Maslenjak and her family immigrated to the United States as refugees in the aftermath of the Bosnian War, claiming they feared persecution because Maslenjak’s husband had avoided military conscription during the war. Maslenjak became a United States citizen in 2009, indicating on her application that she had never lied to immigration officials. United States officials, however, discovered that Maslenjak’s husband served as an officer in the Serbian Bratunac Brigade at the time the unit committed war crimes in the Bosnian War. Maslenjak was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) with “knowingly procuring” her citizenship “contrary to law” due to her misrepresentations of her husband’s military service on her family’s refugee application. Maslenjak argues that materiality is a required element of § 1425(a), and therefore the government must prove that the false statement influenced the decision to approve the citizenship application. The United States argues that § 1425(a) only requires knowledge of the underlying offense, here making a false statement to a government official, and does not require proof of materiality. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the circumstances under which naturalized citizens can be denaturalized and the government’s burden of proof in denaturalization proceedings.

Agron Kucana, an Albanian immigrant, missed his immigration hearing and, in absentia, was ordered to be removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”) denied Kucana's motion to reopen his case. Kucana appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the Board’s decision was not subject to judicial review. In relevant part, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) specifies that certain matters subject to the Attorney General’s discretion are not subject to judicial review. The dispute in this case centers on the scope and proper interpretation of the statute — in particular, on whether it allows judicial review of decisions not to reopen cases, or whether these decisions are outside the realm of judicial review, because they are the subject to the Attorney General’s discretion. The outcome of this case will determine the ability of immigrants to challenge denials of their motions to reopen through the regular judicial process.

After Petitioner Joel Judulang, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was convicted of a deportable offense, the Board of Immigration Appeals determined that he was not eligible for a discretionary waiver of deportability under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. On its face, Section 212(c) applies only to lawful permanent residents who are excludable when they attempt to enter the country, rather than to residents convicted of deportable offenses while already in the country. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals has previously allowed some permanent residents convicted of deportable offenses to apply for the Section 212(c) discretionary waiver. Petitioner Judulang asserts that he should be allowed to take advantage of the waiver, since his deportable offenses would render him excludable if he tried to re-enter the country. Judulang further argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals' change in Section 212(c) policy regarding deportable and excludable offenses is impermissibly retroactive and facially unconstitutional. The Department of Justice argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals has good reason to require a close textual similarity between a charged ground of deportability and a waivable ground of excludability, and that its policy is not impermissibly retroactive because it does not reflect a change in previous law. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will mean the difference between amnesty and deportation for many lawful permanent residents convicted of deportable offenses.