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

statutedeportationliens
statutedeportationliens

Related Cases

Perales-Cumpean v. Gonzales
View Case »
Fraser v. Lynch
View Case »
Mihalev v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Silva v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Djadjou v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Faiz-Mohammad v. Ashcroft

Facts

Mr. Faiz-Mohammad first attempted to enter the United States in March 1988 using a false passport and was ordered excluded as an alien who had attempted to enter the United States by fraud. He was removed from the United States on May 7, 1988, and was not permitted to reenter for a year. He reentered the U.S. in June 1989 and later married a naturalized citizen. In February 1997, he filed an application for adjustment of status, which was denied by the INS, leading to the reinstatement of a prior deportation order.

Mr. Faiz-Mohammad first attempted to enter the United States in March 1988 using a false passport and was ordered excluded as an alien who had attempted to enter the United States by fraud. He was removed from the United States on May 7, 1988, and was not permitted to reenter for a year. He reentered the U.S. in June 1989 and later married a naturalized citizen. In February 1997, he filed an application for adjustment of status, which was denied by the INS, leading to the reinstatement of a prior deportation order.

Issue

Whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act's (IIRIRA) reinstatement provision, 8 U.S.C.S. 1231(a)(5), can be applied retroactively to aliens who reentered the United States and applied for discretionary relief before the effective date.

Whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act's (IIRIRA) reinstatement provision, 8 U.S.C.S. 1231(a)(5), can be applied retroactively to aliens who reentered the United States and applied for discretionary relief before the effective date.

Rule

The court applied the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which established a two-part inquiry to determine whether a statute is retroactive, focusing on congressional intent and whether retroactive application would impair rights a party possessed when he acted.

The court applied the guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which established a two-part inquiry to determine whether a statute is retroactive, focusing on congressional intent and whether retroactive application would impair rights a party possessed when he acted.

Analysis

The court found that Congress did not intend for the reinstatement provision to apply retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to its effective date. The reasoning was supported by the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, which noted that the removal of retroactivity language from the statute indicated a lack of intent for retroactive application. The court also considered the silence of Congress regarding retroactivity as instructive.

The court found that Congress did not intend for the reinstatement provision to apply retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to its effective date. The reasoning was supported by the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, which noted that the removal of retroactivity language from the statute indicated a lack of intent for retroactive application. The court also considered the silence of Congress regarding retroactivity as instructive.

Conclusion

The court reversed the order of removal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that the reinstatement provision could not be applied retroactively to the alien's situation.

The court reversed the order of removal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that the reinstatement provision could not be applied retroactively to the alien's situation.

Who won?

The petitioner, Mr. Faiz-Mohammad, prevailed in the case because the court determined that the INS's application of the reinstatement provision was impermissible due to its retroactive effect on his rights.

The petitioner, Mr. Faiz-Mohammad, prevailed in the case because the court determined that the INS's application of the reinstatement provision was impermissible due to its retroactive effect on his rights.

You must be