Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190306_0000308.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 16:00:18
Document Index: 66832834

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1326', '§ 212', '§ 240', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1326', '§ 1229', '§ 1229', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 1229', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1229', '§ 1003', '§ 1003', '§ 1229']

FindACase™ | United States v. Fernandez-Casas
JOSE FERNANDEZ-CASAS, Defendant.
The Indictment in this case charges Defendant Jose Fernandez-Casas with unlawful reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Defendant seeks dismissal of the Indictment on the basis that his prior removal from the United States was invalid because the immigration court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the underlying removal order. Because the Court concludes that Defendant's prior removal was valid, the Court denies Defendant's motion.
Defendant was arrested on December 28, 2007, by the Syracuse, Kansas, Police Department during a traffic stop. Eventually the police department released him to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on January 17, 2008, for the initiation of deportation proceedings. The next day, an immigration official approved a warrant for his arrest and served it on him at 1:01 p.m. The Notice of Custody Determination, indicates that the immigration judge released him on a $5, 000 bond. Defendant signed a provision in that document acknowledging that he received this notification and that he did not request a redetermination of this custody decision.
On that same date, Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice to Appear to Defendant (the “Notice”), which was prepared using Form I-862 (Rev. 08/01/07). The Notice alleged that Defendant was not a United States citizen; that he was a citizen of Mexico; that he arrived in the United States at or near Laredo, Texas, on July 1, 1990; and that he was not then admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer. The Notice charged that Defendant was subject to removal from the United States pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
The Notice ordered Defendant to appear before an immigration judge in Kansas City, Missouri, “on a date to be set at a time to be set” to show why he should not be removed from the United States. In addition, the Notice contained a certificate of service that was signed by Defendant and the immigration enforcement agent. The certificate of service stated that that the Notice was personally served on Defendant on January 18, 2008, and that Defendant was given a list of organizations and attorneys that provide free legal services.
On January 24, 2008, ICE[2] sent a letter to the Office of the Immigration Judge advising that the defendant was released on bond. At the bottom of this document, the signing party certified that Defendant was provided a specific form and notified that he must inform the court of any change of address.
A Notice of Hearing was issued on April 20, 2009, informing Defendant that a master hearing was scheduled before the immigration court in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 26, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. The certificate of service states that the Notice of Hearing was served on Defendant and DHA. Subsequent documents indicate that this hearing was continued numerous times.
On October 27, 2009, Defendant filed a document titled “Respondent's Written Pleading, ” in which he and his attorney represented the following: (1) the Notice to Appear dated January 18, 2008, was properly served on Defendant; (2) Defendant entered the United States in 1990 from his country of origin, Mexico, without proper inspection or admittance; and (3) Defendant was subject to removal. Defendant further asserted that he sought relief pursuant to cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b) and “voluntary departure - alternative.” As a result, the immigration judge ordered Defendant to file an application for relief by January 25, 2010.
On June 10, 2010, the immigration court granted Defendant's application for voluntary departure until October 8, 2010. The filed order indicates that Defendant was orally advised of the limitation on discretionary relief and consequences for a failing to depart as ordered. Both Defendant and DHS waived the right to appeal. A Warrant of Removal/Deportation was prepared on December 8, 2010, stating that Defendant was subject to removal from the United States based on a final order by an immigration judge.
On February 5, 2013, a Notice of Intent/Decision to Reinstate Prior Order was entered finding that Defendant was removed from the United States on January 4, 2013, and reentered the United States on February 2, 2013. Defendant signed this document indicating that he did not wish to contest this determination. The Warrant of Removal/Deportation was issued, and Defendant was deported.
On February 14, Defendant entered the United States again without proper authorization. The prior deportation order was reinstated without Defendant's objection. Defendant was deported on March 29, 2013.
On August 13, 2018, Defendant was arrested in Pratt, Kansas, and on November 5, he was convicted of being an alien in possession of a weapon in violation of K.S.A. 21-6301(a)(16). He was surrendered to federal authorities pursuant to an immigration detainer.
Defendant is now charged with reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). Specifically, the Indictment charges that Defendant is a citizen of Mexico and not a citizen and national of the United States, that he was previously deported, and that he was found in the United States after having voluntarily re-entered without the appropriate permission. Defendant subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 8) which is presently before the Court.
To convict Defendant on the charge of reentry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b), the Government must prove that (1) the defendant was removed from the United States while an order of removal is outstanding; and (2) the defendant subsequently “entered, attempted to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States.”[3] Generally, the Government establishes the first element by producing evidence that the defendant was deported while a deportation order was outstanding against him.[4] In response, a defendant may argue that the deportation order itself was unlawful.[5] This defense is specifically recognized in subsection (d) of § 1326, which allows a defendant to collaterally attack an underlying deportation order. Under this subsection, an alien may not challenge the validity of a prior deportation order unless the alien demonstrates that: “(1) the alien exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings at which the order was issued improperly deprived the alien of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.”[6]
Here, Defendant challenges the validity of the September 2008 removal order as a defense to the § 1326(a) and (b) charge in the Indictment. In short, Defendant argues that the immigration court was never vested with subject matter jurisdiction because the Notice lacked a specific date and time for the initial removal hearing as required by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Pereira v. Sessions.[7] Accordingly, Defendant argues that his due process rights were violated when he was deported from the United States. In response, the Government argues that Pereira does not apply, because unlike the alien in Pereira, Defendant received adequate information to appear and actually did appear with his counsel in 2010 and while in custody in 2013.
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, nonpermanent residents who are subject to removal proceedings may be eligible for cancellation of removal if, among other things, they have “been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of [an] application” for cancellation.[8] But, under the “stop-time rule, ” the period of continuous presence is “deemed to end . . . when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).”[9] Section 1229(a), in turn, states that the Government must serve the alien with a written notice to appear specifying, among other things, “[t]he time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held.”[10] In recent years, DHS typically issued notices to appear that failed to specify the time, place, or date of initial removal hearings whenever the agency deemed it impracticable to include this information.[11] This is the case with the notice to appear received by the defendant in Pereira.[12]
Pereira is a citizen of Brazil who arrived in the United States in 2000 and stayed after his visa expired.[13] After he was arrested in 2006 for operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, DHS served him with a notice to appear that did not specify the time or date of his initial removal proceeding.[14] A year later, the immigration court mailed him a more specific notice setting forth the time and date of the hearing, but the notice was sent to the wrong address.[15] As a result, Pereira failed to appear and the immigration court ordered him removed “in absentia.”[16] In 2013, Pereira was arrested again and the immigration court reopened the removal proceedings.[17] Pereira applied for cancellation of removal, arguing that the stop-time rule was not triggered by DHS's initial 2006 notice because it failed to specify the time and date of his removal hearing.[18] The immigration court denied Pereira's application and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) agreed, finding that the 2006 notice triggered the stop-time rule even though it failed to specify the time and date of the removal hearing.[19] The First Circuit denied Pereira's petition for review of the BIA's order.[20]
The Supreme Court held that “[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen's removal proceedings is not a ‘notice to appear under section 1229(a),' and so does not trigger the stop-time rule.”[21] The Supreme Court relied on the statutory language of the stop-time rule, which states that the alien's physical presence ends “when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).”[22] Because § 1229(a) specifies that the notice to appear is a “[w]ritten notice” that specifies “the time and place at which the [removal] proceedings will be held, ” the Government must serve a notice that specifies the time and place of the removal proceedings.[23] The Supreme Court also observed that § 1229(a)(2), which allows for a change or postponement of the proceedings to a new time and place, presumes that the Government has already served a notice that specifies the time and place as required by § 1229(a).[24] Otherwise, there would be no time or place to change or postpone.[25] The Supreme Court also focused on the alien's need for a meaningful opportunity to obtain counsel and to prepare and participate in the hearing.[26] Pereira never received notice of the hearing and therefore he did not have this opportunity.[27] The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Pereira's appeal and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.[28]
B. Validity of the 2010 Removal Order
It is undisputed that Defendant's Notice was deficient under Pereira because it did not state the date and time of Defendant's initial removal proceeding. Defendant argues that this deficiency divested the immigration of subject matter jurisdiction thereby rendering his removal proceedings null and void. In support of this argument, Defendant relies on the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General interpreting the INA. Specifically, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) states that “[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the [i]mmigration [c]ourt by the Service.” The regulations define a “charging document” as “the written instrument which initiates a proceeding before an [i]mmigration [j]udge. . . . these documents include a Notice to Appear, a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, and a Notice of Intention to Rescind and Request for Hearings by Alien.”[29]Accordingly, Defendant argues that because his Notice was defective under Pereira, a valid charging document was never filed in the immigration court and thus it did not have subject matter jurisdiction.[30]
The Court disagrees with Defendant that Pereira is applicable to this matter. Defendant seeks to expand Pereira's holding to encompass all notices to appear in all types of removal proceedings, not just those concerning the stop-time rule. He also seeks to extend its holding to circumstances where the alien later receives the missing information and actually attends the hearing. This expansive application conflicts with the plain language of the Supreme Court's decision, which explicitly stated that the question before it was a “narrow” one.[31] Indeed, when discussing the limitations of the notice to appear under § 1229(a), the Supreme Court limited its discussion to the context of the stop-time rule.[32] The word “jurisdiction” does not appear anywhere in the opinion. The Court presumes that if the Supreme Court intended for its holding to address the subject matter jurisdiction of the immigration courts as Defendant suggests, it would not have described the dispositive issue as a “narrow” one.
First, the BIA found that Pereira did not affect when or how jurisdiction was conferred on the immigration court, distinguishing Pereira on the basis that it involved a cancellation of removal where the stop-time rule was at issue.[38] The BIA noted that in Pereira the Supreme Court described the issue before it as “narrow” and reasoned that the Court would not have described the issue as such if it intended for its holding to affect the immigration court's jurisdiction.[39] Lastly, the BIA emphasized that the Supreme Court did not invalidate the alien's underlying removal proceedings or even suggest that they should be terminated as a result of the deficient notice.[40]Instead, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for “further proceedings.”[41]
Second, the BIA addressed the regulations, finding that it was not required to terminate proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14. As noted above, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 states that “[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an [i]mmigration [j]udge commence, when a charging document is filed with the [i]mmigration [c]ourt.”[42] According to the BIA, this regulation does not specify what information must be contained in a “charging document” at the time it is filed with an immigration court.[43] Nor does it require that the charging document specify the time and date of the initial removal hearing before jurisdiction vests.[44] The BIA further noted that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15-the regulation setting forth the required information for a notice to appear-does not specify that the time and date of the initial hearing must be included in the document.[45] In fact, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18 states that the notice need only contain the time, place, and date of the initial removal hearing “where practicable, ” and if that information is not contained in the notice, the immigration court is responsible for scheduling the initial removal hearing and providing this information to the government and the alien.[46] The BIA reasoned that terminating proceedings where service was proper under this regulation would require it to disregard a regulation that it is compelled to follow.[47]
The Sixth Circuit also analyzed the regulations, agreeing with the BIA that the regulations were ambiguous because they did not specify what information must be contained in a charging document at the time it is filed with the district court.[56] The circuit also noted that the definition of “charging document” does not only include a notice to appear but also a “Notices of Referral to Immigration Judge” and a “Notice of Intention to Rescind and Request for Hearing by Alien.”[57]And finally, the Sixth Circuit noted that the Pereira Court did not invalidate the petitioner's underlying removal proceedings, stating that “[i]f Pereira's holding applied to jurisdiction, there also would not have been jurisdiction in Pereira itself. But the Court took up, decided, and remanded Pereira without even hinting at the possibility of a jurisdictional flaw.”[58] Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit concluded “that jurisdiction vests with the immigration court where . . . the mandatory information about the time of the hearing, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), is provided in a Notice of Hearing issued after the [notice to appear].”[59]
The Court notes that although both the Sixth and Ninth Circuit gave the BIA's decision in Bermudez-Cota deference, there is a slight difference in their conclusions. The Sixth Circuit concluded that jurisdiction vests with the immigration court when the time and date information required by § 1229(a)(1) is provided in a notice of hearing issued after the notice to appear.[73] The Ninth Circuit, on the other hand, does not require the time and date information to be issued in a notice of hearing for jurisdiction to vest. It held that jurisdiction vests when a notice to appear that meets the regulatory requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 is filed with the immigration court.[74] This difference most likely stems from the BIA's language in Matter of Bermudez-Cota, where the BIA held that “a notice to appear that does not specify the time and place of an alien's removal hearing vests an [i]mmigration [j]udge with jurisdiction over the removal proceedings and meets the requirements of [§ 1229(a) of the INA], so long as a notice of hearing specifying this information is later sent to the alien.”[75] After reviewing the BIA's decision, this Court is not convinced that the BIA intended for jurisdiction to turn on whether there is a later-issued notice informing the alien of the time and date of the hearing.[76] Rather, the BIA's reference to the later notice of hearing ensures that the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(b) and § 1229(a)(1) are met. Indeed, as a district court in the Northern District of California who also looked at this issue explained, if a notice of hearing was the document that vested the immigration court with jurisdiction and this document is typically served after the notice to appear, how would an immigration court that had only issued a notice to appear know if it had jurisdiction?[77] The Court therefore concludes that jurisdiction vests when a notice to appear that complies with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 is filed with the immigration court.[78]
In sum, the immigration court had jurisdiction to order Defendant's removal. The 2008 Notice filed with the immigration court complied with the requirements set forth in the regulations. Defendant subsequently received a notice of hearing informing him of the date and time of his hearing in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 and § 1229(a)(1). Accordingly, Defendant's argument that the 2010 removal order was void fails.[79]
C. Defendant's Collateral Attack of the 2010 Removal Order