About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

39 Preview U.S. Sup. Ct. Cas. 175 (2011-2012)
Right to Reenter - Retroactively Applying a Law against a Lawful Permanent Resident for a Prior Criminal Offense, The (10-1211)

handle is hein.journals/prvw39 and id is 187 raw text is: The Right to Reenter-Retroactively Applying a Law Against a Lawful Permanent Resident for a Prior Criminal Offense CASE AT A GLANCE The United States Supreme Court will review whether a law that takes away a lawful permanent resident's right to reenter the country can be applied retroactively. The law in question states that an alien can be denied entry into the United States if the alien has committed an offense of so-called moral turpitude. In this case, the petitioner is fighting to stay in the United States after being denied reentry following a 2003 trip to Greece. In 1994, he pled guilty after playing a small part in a counterfeiting scheme. The petitioner claims that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which came into effect in 1997, cannot be applied retroactively to his 1994 guilty plea. Vartelas v. Holder Docket No. 10-1211 Argument Date: January 18, 2012 From: The Second Circuit by Andrew Clark Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA ISSUE Can 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), which denies a lawful permanent resident to have the right to make innocent, casual, and brief' trips across international borders without the threat of being denied entry back into the United States under Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), be applied retroactively to a guilty plea made before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (1996) came into effect? FACTS Since 1979, Panagis Vartelas has lived in the United States. In 1989, Vartelas was admitted as a legal permanent resident following his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Three years later, he took part in a scheme to manufacture and sell $50,000 worth of counterfeit traveler's checks. His partner, a coworker, made the counterfeit checks and Vartelas contributed by providing the paper the checks were printed on. Ultimately, Vartelas did not make any money from the scheme. In 1994, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make or possess counterfeit securities and subsequently served four months in prison. Nearly a decade later, in 2003, Vartelas went to Greece for seven days to see his family. When Vartelas attempted to return to the United States, he was denied entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (a) (2) (A) (i) (I), as he was considered an inadmissible alien due to his 1994 conviction. Vartelas appeared before an immigration judge and acknowledged that he was removable. However, Vartelas sought a waiver. His ap- plication for waiver was denied for a number of reasons, including his penchant for taking lengthy trips to Greece. He was then ordered by the immigration judge to be removed to Greece. Vartelas filed a motion to reopen his proceedings in 2008 with the Board of Immigra- tion Appeals (BIA) on the basis that he received ineffective counsel from his attorney. His motion was denied. Vartelas next sought judicial review of the BIA's denial. The Second Circuit denied his petition for review, as they found he did not meet the standards to show he was prejudiced by ineffective counsel. Ad- ditionally, the court found that his counterfeiting conviction made him eligible for removal. The court next considered the retroactive applicability of the amended definition of admission in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The court held that although Congress had not dealt with the reach of the IIRIRA in regards to time, Vartelas could not claim he made a reason- able reliance on the former version of the law when he originally de- cided to plead guilty, and moreover, that the act didn't have a genu- inely retroactive effect. Ultimately, the court stated that the BIA reasonably interpreted IIRIRA as superseding the Fleuti doctrine. Following the Second Court's decision, Vartelas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on April 4, 2011. The peti- tion was granted on September 27, 2011. CASE ANALYSIS At issue in this case is an amendment to 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(13)(C) (v) through the IIRIRA which caused a repeal of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (13). The new language stated: An alien lawfully admitted for perma- nent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for the purpose of the immigra- tion laws unless the alien, (v) has committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2), unless since offense the alien has been granted PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most