Case: Pruidze v. Holder

09-03836 | No Court

Filed Date: July 9, 2009

Closed Date: 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In July 2004, Petitioner in this case, then a green-card holder, returned to the United States and applied for admission as a lawful permanent resident alien. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied his application for admission, explaining that Petitioner's state conviction for a controlled-substance crime made him inadmissible. An Immigration Judge found Mr. Petitioner deportable, and DHS removed him on April 29, 2009. Six days later, Petitioner moved the state court to reopen his cr…

In July 2004, Petitioner in this case, then a green-card holder, returned to the United States and applied for admission as a lawful permanent resident alien. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied his application for admission, explaining that Petitioner's state conviction for a controlled-substance crime made him inadmissible. An Immigration Judge found Mr. Petitioner deportable, and DHS removed him on April 29, 2009. Six days later, Petitioner moved the state court to reopen his criminal proceedings because he had entered his guilty plea without counsel. On May 12, 2009, the state court set aside Petitioner's conviction.

On May 29, 2009, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) because without his criminal conviction, he believed he should no longer be deportable. The BIA denied his motion, reasoning that, because Petitioner was no longer in the United States, it did not have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's motion. The BIA relied on Matter of Armendarez-Mendez, 241. & N. Dec. 646 (B.I.A. 2008), which held that the "departure bar," 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), divested the Board of ''jurisdiction'' to entertain motions to reopen filed by aliens who are abroad. The departure bar says that " [a] motion to reopen ... shall not be made by ... a person who is the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings subsequent to his or her departure from the United States."

Petitioner appealed the denial of his motion to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On February 3, 2011, in a published opinion authored by Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, the Sixth Circuit found that the BIA's decision was incorrect and that immigrants like Petitioner have a right to reopen cases from outside the United States. The Court observed that other immigration law statutes, such as those adopted in the 1996 Immigration Act, do not support the BIA's reading of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) as preventing review of motions to reopen from outside of the country. Although "the agency is not required--by statute or this decision--to grant Petitioner's motion to reopen,...it is required---by both--to consider it."

Summary Authors

Xin Chen (4/10/2011)

People


Judge(s)

Sutton, Jeffrey S. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dhade, Herman S. (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Marsteller, Eric Warren (District of Columbia)

Messuri, Anthony John (District of Columbia)

Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)

Segall, Jessica (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Sutton, Jeffrey S. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Dhade, Herman S. (Michigan)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Marsteller, Eric Warren (District of Columbia)

Messuri, Anthony John (District of Columbia)

Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)

Segall, Jessica (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

April 5, 2011 Docket

The Sixth Circuit Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

632 F.3d 234

Feb. 3, 2011 Order/Opinion

Docket

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 9, 2009

Closing Date: 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), BIA denied his motion. Plaintiff appealed the denial of his motion to the Sixth Circuit Court.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Attorney General, Federal

Case Details

Special Case Type(s):

Out-of-court

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Deportation - judicial review