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

attorneyappealcitizenshipdeportation
statutetestimonycitizenship

Related Cases

Kovalev v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Murray v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Manzo-Fontes v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Ge v. USCIS
View Case »
Kessler v. Strecker
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Terrazas-Hernandez v. Barr

Facts

Raul Terrazas-Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States illegally multiple times between 1985 and 1994, often claiming American citizenship. He was ordered deported in 1993 after being discovered by immigration officials during a jail check. Terrazas voluntarily removed himself on the day of the deportation order but claimed to have reentered the U.S. two days later. He filed for adjustment of status three times, but his applications were denied due to failure to prosecute. In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior removal order.

Terrazas is a Mexican citizen. In general, the parties dispute when, and at what ages, Terrazas entered the United States illegally. It appears he did so approximately four times between 1985 and 1994, usually by falsely claiming American citizenship. (Because Terrazas has given conflicting testimony over the years regarding his various entries, the exact number is unclear.)

Issue

Whether the application of IIRIRA to Terrazas-Hernandez was impermissibly retroactive and whether his reentry into the United States was lawful.

Whether the application of IIRIRA to Terrazas-Hernandez was impermissibly retroactive and whether his reentry into the United States was lawful.

Rule

The court applied the principle that an order reinstating a prior removal is not subject to review by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and that the retroactive application of IIRIRA is permissible if no adjustment-application was pending at the time of reinstatement.

The court applied the principle that an order reinstating a prior removal is not subject to review by the BIA; therefore, as stated in 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), Terrazas could not seek review of the reinstatement order.

Analysis

The court determined that Terrazas' 1995 adjustment-application was not pending at the time of the reinstatement order in 2012, as it had been denied in 2001 due to his failure to prosecute. The court noted that the denial was not due to the enactment of IIRIRA but rather Terrazas' own actions. Furthermore, the court found that Terrazas could not demonstrate that his reentry was lawful, as he did not have the Attorney General's permission to reenter the country.

We hold the statute may be applied retroactively to Terrazas because such an application is not impermissible. Terrazas' 1995 adjustment-application was not pending at time of the reinstatement order in 2012, because, as discussed, it had been denied in 2001-11 years before the reinstatement of the removal order. Regardless of whether the application was before IIRIRA's 1 April 1997 effective date, it had been rejected long before reinstatement proceedings began.

Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of Terrazas' petition for review, concluding that the IIRIRA was not impermissibly retroactive as applied to him and that his reentry was unlawful.

DENIED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court found that Terrazas could not show that his reentry was lawful and that the application of IIRIRA was appropriate.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court found that Terrazas could not show that his reentry was lawful and that the application of IIRIRA was appropriate.

You must be