Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

hearingfelonyparoledue processdeportationnaturalization
hearingfelonyparoledue processdeportationnaturalization

Related Cases

Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge
View Case »
Gameros-Hernandez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Perez v. Elwood
View Case »
Ibarra v. Swacina
View Case »
Mengistu v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dipeppe v. Quarantillo

Facts

Rita DiPeppe is a native and citizen of Italy who was admitted to the United States on September 21, 1955 as an LPR. On August 5, 1992 she pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter after fatally shooting her husband with a handgun. She was sentenced to a term of twenty-seven years imprisonment with nine years of parole ineligibility. Based on her conviction, the INS issued and served upon DiPeppe an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and Notice of Hearing dated September 24, 1992. Those documents informed DiPeppe that the INS was leveling deportation charges against her under former INA 241(a)(2)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) based upon her conviction for a crime defined as an 'aggravated felony' under the INA.

Rita DiPeppe is a native and citizen of Italy who was admitted to the United States on September 21, 1955 as an LPR. On August 5, 1992 she pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter after fatally shooting her husband with a handgun. She was sentenced to a term of twenty-seven years imprisonment with nine years of parole ineligibility. Based on her conviction, the INS issued and served upon DiPeppe an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and Notice of Hearing dated September 24, 1992. Those documents informed DiPeppe that the INS was leveling deportation charges against her under former INA 241(a)(2)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) based upon her conviction for a crime defined as an 'aggravated felony' under the INA.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and whether DiPeppe was entitled to seek relief under 212(c) of the INA.

The main legal issues were whether 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and whether DiPeppe was entitled to seek relief under 212(c) of the INA.

Rule

The court applied the principle that the distinction between legal permanent residents (LPRs) and non-LPRs under 212(h) survives rational basis scrutiny and does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The court applied the principle that the distinction between legal permanent residents (LPRs) and non-LPRs under 212(h) survives rational basis scrutiny and does not violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Analysis

The court analyzed the equal protection challenge to 212(h) and concluded that the statutory distinction between LPRs and non-LPRs was not a violation of the Due Process Clause. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that DiPeppe was foreclosed from seeking relief under 212(c) due to her aggravated felony conviction and the length of her imprisonment.

The court analyzed the equal protection challenge to 212(h) and concluded that the statutory distinction between LPRs and non-LPRs was not a violation of the Due Process Clause. The court also affirmed the district court's ruling that DiPeppe was foreclosed from seeking relief under 212(c) due to her aggravated felony conviction and the length of her imprisonment.

Conclusion

The court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the equal protection challenge to 212(h) but affirmed the ruling that DiPeppe was not eligible for relief under 212(c).

The court reversed the district court's judgment regarding the equal protection challenge to 212(h) but affirmed the ruling that DiPeppe was not eligible for relief under 212(c).

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as the court affirmed the district court's ruling that DiPeppe was not entitled to seek relief under 212(c).

The prevailing party was the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as the court affirmed the district court's ruling that DiPeppe was not entitled to seek relief under 212(c).

You must be