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

jurisdictionappealfelonyvisa

jurisdictionlawyerappealhearingwillleasefelonyimmigration lawvisa

Related Cases

Dohou; U.S. v.

Facts

Euphrem Kios Dohou, originally from Benin, entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa and later became a lawful permanent resident. After being convicted of an aggravated felony, he faced removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security. Following an immigration judge's order for his removal, Dohou did not appeal the decision. He was subsequently indicted for hindering his removal, leading him to challenge the validity of the removal order in district court.

In 1992, Dohou came from Benin to the United States on a visitor's visa. He became a lawful permanent resident a few years later. More than a decade after that, he was convicted of conspiring to traffic marijuana. That crime is an aggravated felony, which made him removable. When Dohou was released from prison in 2015, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings. To start the process, it served him with a notice to appear before an immigration judge at a date and time to be set later. He then hired an immigration lawyer. After a hearing, the immigration judge ordered Dohou removed to Benin. He never appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, or filed a petition for review in the appropriate court of appeals.

Issue

Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the validity of Dohou's removal order and whether he could collaterally attack it in his hindering-removal prosecution.

Rule

A removal order that has not been judicially decided by an Article III court remains subject to collateral attack in a hindering-removal prosecution, as per 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(7)(A). Additionally, 1252(a)(2)(C) does not strip jurisdiction over collateral attacks.

Immigration judges' decisions are presumptively subject to review by Article III courts. a removal order that was never in fact reviewed by an Article III judge remains subject to collateral attack in a hindering-removal prosecution based on that order. And 1252(a)(2)(C), a provision that sometimes strips jurisdiction over direct review of removal orders, does not apply to collateral attacks.

Analysis

The court determined that since Dohou's removal order had never been reviewed by an Article III court, it was not 'judicially decided' and thus could be collaterally attacked. The court also clarified that the jurisdiction-stripping provision in 1252(a)(2)(C) applies only to direct reviews and does not affect collateral attacks, allowing the district court to have jurisdiction over Dohou's claims.

We hold that 1252(b)(7)(A) lets him collaterally attack his removal order because the immigration judge's order has not been 'judicially decided.' And 1252(a)(2)(C) does not strip that jurisdiction because it bars only direct review of removal orders, not collateral attacks on them.

Conclusion

The court vacated the district court's finding of lack of jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding the ineffective-assistance claim and the exhaustion of claims.

We will thus vacate the District Court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

Who won?

Dohou prevailed because the court found that the district court had jurisdiction to review his collateral attack on the removal order, which had not been judicially decided.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Islam v. Quarantillo

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA

Air Transp. Association of America v. Reno

Stevic; Immigration and Naturalization Service v.

Garberding v. Immigration and Naturalization Service