1

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 94-40255.

Parkash Ram ATTUL, A38-118-133, Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

Jan. 24, 1995.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals.

Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Parkash Ram Attul petitions us to review his deportation order

handed down by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He contends

that he is ineligible for deportation because of Congress's

amendment to the statute under which the INS seeks to deport him.

We deny his petition.

BACKGROUND

Attul, an Indian citizen, has been a permanent resident of the

United States for eleven years. In December 1985, in response to

charges that he participated in a fraudulent marriage scheme, Attul

pleaded guilty to making false statements under penalty of perjury,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(5)

(1988) (amended 1990), violation of § 1546 is grounds for

deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

commenced deportation proceedings, and an immigration judge

declared Attul deportable in July 1987. During Attul's appeal to

the BIA, a fire destroyed the records of his proceedings.
2

The INS renewed deportation proceedings in January 1989. On

February 26, 1991, an immigration judge again found Attul

deportable, but granted a waiver on the basis of unusual and

outstanding equities. The INS appealed to the BIA, which affirmed

the deportation order and vacated the waiver. Attul petitions us

for review.

DISCUSSION

The BIA found Attul deportable under the pre-1990 version of

8 U.S.C. § 1251. Congress amended this statute in 1990, but the

amended statute does not apply to Attul because he received notice

of the deportation proceedings prior to March 1, 1991. See

Pritchett v. INS, No. 93-5546, slip op. at 7 (5th Cir. July 6,

1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 421, 130 L.Ed.2d 336

(1994). Furthermore, the amended statute does not affect a

deportation order granted under the old statute. Id.

Nevertheless, Attul would have us construe the amended statute

to determine his deportability. He cites In re B---, 5 I. & N.

Dec. 255 (BIA 1953), to demonstrate that the BIA will not deport an

alien under a statute that is no longer effective. In B---, the

BIA withdrew the deportation order of a German national whose basis

for deportation was his membership in the German Nazi Party.

Congress had recently amended the statute to limit deportation to

members of organizations that advocate such a regime in the United

States. The BIA applied the new statute and concluded that the

alien should not be deported, despite the existence of a valid

savings provision. Id. at 257-58. The BIA considered its
 

1The BIA determined that Attul was deportable under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1251(a)(3)(B)(iii) (Supp. III 1991). Because of the conclusion

we reach, we need not address this issue. 

3

conclusion consistent with other decisions in which it refused to

deport aliens that were racially barred from entry into this

country after the racial bar had been removed. Id. at 258.

In the present case, the INS has commenced deportation

proceedings against Attul because of his act of perjury, not

because of his race or his party membership. The BIA has not

applied B--- outside of cases in which the repealed exclusion was

based on race or politics. Cf. United States v. Gruttadauro, 818

F.2d 1323, 1325 n. 2 (7th Cir.1987) (explaining that the General

Savings Clause, 1 U.S.C. § 109, requires application of a

pre-amendment statute dispensing a penalty unless Congress has

substituted a right for what was a crime). We decline the

invitation to extend B--- in the face of the 1990 congressional

enactment which states that the 1990 version of § 1251 will not

apply to cases in which the alien has been provided with notice of

the deportation proceedings prior to March 1, 1991. Immigration

Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101-649, § 602(d), 104 Stat. 4978, 5082

(1990), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1161 note (Supp. III 1991). We

determine that the amended version of § 1251 is irrelevant to the

issue of Attul's deportation.1

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Attul's petition is DENIED.