Opinion ID: 1085423
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 1997 Removal

Text: On December 13, 1997, Shunaula attempted to enter the United States at Miami, Florida, on a tourist visa. Officers of the then-existing Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) searched Shunaula and found a counterfeit green card and social security card in his wallet. Shunaula admitted knowing that these documents were counterfeit and disclosed that he had ordered them by mail in Ecuador. The INS issued an order of expedited removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1),3 and Shunaula was returned to Ecuador the following day. Four months later, in April 1998, Shunaula entered the United States illegally and has remained here since. On August 13, 2007, the INS’s successor agency, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), issued Shunaula a Notice to Appear, charging that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) as an alien who had previously sought admission to the United States through fraud or 3 Title 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i) states that an alien found inadmissible by reason of, inter alia, having sought admission to the United States through fraud or misrepresentation, see id. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), “shall” be ordered removed “without further hearing or review” unless the alien indicates that he fears persecution or intends to apply for asylum. 4 misrepresentation, and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present without admission or parole. Appearing before the IJ in 2010, Shunaula acknowledged that he had sought to enter the United States in possession of false documents in 1997, but asserted that he had neither been told during his expedited removal proceedings that there would be future restrictions on his ability to reenter the United States, nor informed of any right to retain counsel. His counsel stated that the expedited removal order was invalid and improper inasmuch as Shunaula had possessed a valid visa at the time of his 1997 entry. The IJ concluded that he was not in a position to entertain a collateral attack on the 1997 expedited removal order. The IJ ruled that Shunaula was (1) inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(II), which renders inadmissible any alien who enters the United States illegally after having been ordered removed pursuant to, inter alia, an order of expedited removal; and therefore (2) ineligible for adjustment of status. See IJ Decision at 5–6, Admin. R. 65–66 (citing Delgado v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding ineligible for adjustment of status alien who was inadmissible due to reentry after prior removal)). On appeal to the BIA, Shunaula pressed the argument that his 13-year-old expedited removal order was improper because he possessed a valid visa at the time 5 of his Miami entry. The BIA concluded that “no jurisdiction lies for us (or the Immigration Judge) to address this argument now,” and affirmed the IJ’s removal order. BIA Decision at 2, Admin. R. 4. Before this court, Shunaula argues that his 1997 expedited removal violated due process because (1) he was searched at the airport and held against his will despite having a valid tourist visa; (2) he was charged with having sought to enter the United States through fraud or willful misrepresentation when he had made no misrepresentation and intended none; (3) he was not advised that he was in an expedited removal proceeding or given an opportunity to contest the government’s allegations; (4) he was not given the opportunity to consult a lawyer; and (5) the only document he signed was in English, a language he does not understand.