Opinion ID: 752068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction Over Fernandes' Petition After IIRIRA.

Text: 24 The jurisdiction of the district court over Fernandes' petition thus depends on (a) whether Fernandes is asserting an interest under § 245A of IRCA (8 U.S.C § 1255a); and, (b) if so, whether Fernandes in fact filed an application within the specified period or attempted to file a complete application and application fee with an authorized legalization officer of the Service but had the application and fee refused by that officer. IIRIRA § 377(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(4)(C). It is undisputed that Fernandes is indeed asserting an interest under § 245A of IRCA. But there may be an unresolved question of fact regarding whether Fernandes actually attempted to file an application and was front-desked by an INS legalization officer. 25 Although Fernandes' claim arises by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the INS's exclusion and deportation orders, it is nonetheless a claim by [a] person asserting an interest under IRCA. The basis for Fernandes' petition is that his status as an applicant for legalization under § 245A of IRCA, and his membership in the LULAC class, entitled him (1) to make a brief, casual, and innocent trip abroad without obtaining advance parole from the INS, and (2) to re-enter the United States by producing only an expired work authorization card as evidence of his legalization status. Insofar as Fernandes' arguments are based upon his status under § 245A of IRCA, Fernandes is asserting an interest under that section. At oral argument, Fernandes' counsel admitted as much, referring to § 245A of IRCA as codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1255a: 26 Q: [Fernandes'] status in the class action is based upon what statutory authority? 27 A: 1255. 28 Q: ... So, his status under 1255 was evidenced by this expired document. 29 A: Yes, Your Honor. 30 Q: And therefore your argument in this case is based upon his status under 1255a. 31 A: Yes, Your Honor. 32 Q: The only interest therefore that your client is asserting is an interest under 1255a. 33 A: Yes, Your Honor. Absolutely. 34 It is also clear that Fernandes did not file an application for legalization within the specified period. Under the regulations promulgated pursuant to IRCA, legalization applications had to be filed between May 5, 1987, and May 4, 1988. See 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(a)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 245a.2(a)(1) (1997). Fernandes filed his application for legalization on December 21, 1989. Fernandes v. McElroy, 920 F.Supp. 428, 434 (S.D.N.Y.1996). 35 However, a factual question arose at oral argument as to whether Fernandes was front-desked by an INS legalization officer. The following exchange took place between the Court and Fernandes' counsel: 36 Q: [W]hy don't we just concentrate on Mr. Fernandes. There's a window of time under the statute--May 5, 1987 to May 4, 1988--what did he do during that period, if anything, to perfect or achieve rights under the program? 37 A: An affidavit was put in by my office that he in fact tried to comply with the requirements prior to the end of the period-- 38 Q: What does that mean he tried to comply? What did he do? 39 A: He went and tried to put in his case-- 40 Q: ... He went where and tried to put in what? 41 A: An application. He went to an immigration office and tried to put in an application but was turned away. He was turned away because he ... had applied for and received a ... visa to come back to the United States. 42 Q: And the evidence for that is an affidavit put in by your office. Who signed it? 43 A: I believe I did. 44 Q: Now were you there at the time that he tried to put the application in? 45 A: I was there in the office when he told me he did-- 46 Q: So, in other words, you know as much about it as I would if your client told me about it. 47 A: That's correct. 48 Q: Why didn't your client put in this affidavit? 49 A: The court had asked for an affidavit from us and we put in the affidavit, in the lower court. 50 Q: Why didn't he tell the man on the street and then you [could] put in the affidavit from the man on the street? The next person passing by? What good is an affidavit from you when you don't know anything other than what someone else told you? How could you even sign such an affidavit? 51 A: As I remember it--and this goes back a while--I was requested by the court to put in a tender of proof that would be proven by my client. And I did so. I responded to the court as they asked. 52 We have been unable to locate any such affidavit or tender of proof in the record on appeal. (Counsel's reference to a visa is unexplained). Counsel for the INS advised the Court at oral argument that he was unaware of any affidavit and that Fernandes was claiming for the first time that he had been front-desked. Finally, we note that Fernandes' attorney did not assert that Fernandes was front-desked in his brief on appeal, even though he explicitly addressed the applicability of IIRIRA to this case. 53 We lack the necessary tools to determine whether Fernandes in fact attempted to file a complete application and application fee with an authorized legalization officer of the Service but had the application and fee refused by that officer. IIRIRA § 377(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f)(4)(C) (West Supp.1997). Nor can we tell whether the district court requested a submission on the subject, or whether counsel for Fernandes complied, or by what submission. The district court was not required to determine whether Fernandes was front-desked as described in § 377(a) because IIRIRA was enacted after the district court granted Fernandes' petition. 1 Indeed, the government admitted at oral argument that it would be necessary to remand the case for the district court to determine if Fernandes did in fact attempt to file an application with the INS: 54 Q: So is this something that, if one accepts your interpretation of the statute as being applicable here, we're going to have to send back to the district court to determine whether or not he actually filed? 55 A: That would be correct your honor if the court felt that jurisdiction--that that was the critical issue ... 56 Q: [Fernandes is] saying that he was front-desked, that's what he's saying. 57 A: He's claiming now for the first time that he tried to timely file. 58 Therefore, we cannot conclusively determine whether § 377(a) deprives the district court of jurisdiction over Fernandes' petition, and instead must remand the case to the district court to determine whether Fernandes attempted to file a completed application and was in fact front-desked by an INS legalization officer. If the district court determines that Fernandes was not front-desked as described in § 377(a), the district court must dismiss Fernandes' petition for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, if the district court finds that representations on that subject are frivolous or without basis in fact, we recommend that the district court consider imposing appropriate sanctions. 59 Finally, we note that Fernandes challenges § 377(a) of IIRIRA as an unconstitutional attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, § 377(a) has not yet been applied to Fernandes, and he has not felt effect of § 377 in a concrete way, CSS, 509 U.S. at 57-58, 113 S.Ct. at 2495-96. That will happen only if the district court finds that Fernandes was not front-desked and dismisses his petition for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 59-60, 113 S.Ct. at 2496-97. Fernandes' challenge to the constitutionality of § 377(a) therefore is not ripe for review.